
Class . 
Book. 



4dXsk 



L\ 



\6 



Copyright^ - 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



/ 

Til 11^ 



THE PASSING OF CAPITALISM, 



A M > 



The Mission of Socialism. ^ 



BY 



ISADOR LADOFF, 

Author of u My Exile to Siberia. 



debs publishing company, 
terre haute, ind. 

1901. 



THE LIBRARY OF 
CONGRESS. 

SEP. 30 1901 

Oo*t)MMT ENTRV 

CLASSttl XXc. N». 

copy a 






Copyright, 1901. 
By Isador LA DOFF. 



INDEX. 

I The Passing of Capitalism and the Mission of Social- 
ism 4 

II The First National Campaign of the Social Demo- 
cratic Party of America 8 

III Two Philosophies of Life 14 

IV Science and Art in Their Relation to Socialism . . 19 

V Anarchism . . ...... .. ... 25 

VI Tilts at the Windmill of State Socialism 35 

VII The Blonde Beast, the Man with the Hoe and the 

Philosophy of Despair . . \ 39 

VIII Religious and Secular Socialism 44 

IX Rationalistic Socialism 47 

X The Ethical Movement . / ' . 51 

XI Is Socialism Materialistic ?...... 60 

XII Economic and Sociological Aspects of Socialism . . 68 

XIII Capitalism and Liberty. Freedom and Socialism . 71 

XIV Cataclysm or Revolution ? 75 

XV Communism and Collectivism 78 

XVI Social Revolution and Reformers 82 

XVII Blissful Socialism 86 

XVIII The Single-tax versus Socialism 90 

XIX Individualism and Crime 95 

XX Suicide and Industrial Anarchy 100 

XXI The Clamor for Peace in Capitalistic Society .... 104 

XXII The Rights of Women 108 

XXIII The Rights of Children 112 

XXIV The Social Evil and Commercialism 115 

XXV Should Trade Unions Enter Politics ? 119 

XXVI May Day and Working-Class Holidays 123 

XXVII The Capitalistic Press 126 

XXVIII Modern Philistinism 131 

XXIX Popular Education as Influenced by Capitalism . . 134 

XXX Our Municipal Policy 137 

XXXI What Shall be Done With the Man With the Hoe? . 141 

XXXII Industrial Insurance and Old Age Pensions .... 145 

XXXIII Building of the Co-operative Commonwealth . . . 149 

XXXIV Intellectual Proletariat 153 

XXXV On the Eve of the Twentieth Century. A Vision . . 156 



I. THE PASSING OF CAPITALISM AND THK MIS- 
SION OF SOCIALISM. 

Why does capitalism flourish in our midst like a venomous 
fungoid? Why did the greatest achievements of the human 
genius m the conquest of dead matter result in the actual re- 
turn to barbarism? Simply because our philosophy of life 
is behind our progress in the domain of purely material 
or industrial activity. Simply because the modern methods 
of production and distribution of wealth are far more ad- 
vanced than our ideals and conceptions about right and wrong. 
Our methods of economic activity are incorporating (although 
incompletely) the progressive principle of socialization, while 
our philosophy of life, our moral ideals, remain still individu- 
alistic or anarchistic. 

Tn this incongruity, in this contradiction between our con- 
ceptions of human inter-relations on one hand and actual 
material conditions on the other, is concealed the center of 
gravity of all social problems of the day. This incongruity 
and contradiction is felt instinctively by everybody. Very few 
however have a clear vision of the hidden causes of these 
phenomena. Deep is the general unrest, broad is the general 
nervousness of the people, obvious are the symptoms of our 
social abnormalities, absurdities and crimes, but very few 
penetrate beneath the mere surface of things. 

Dissatisfaction permeates every class of the people, and 
many are the remedies proposed and advocated by all/, kinds 
of so-called reformers whose name is legion. The middle 
class "reformers" of the democratic-populistic stamp, those 
blind leaders of the blind, preach reaction, return to semi- 
medieval individualism, as a means of escaping the perplex- 
ities of our modern industrial conditions. Their watchword 
is: "Backward, backward, Don Rodrigo!" Another variety 
of half-hearted, one-idea reformers trv lo concentrate all 



their attention on some single panacea, bound to save hu- 
manity in twenty-four hours after its inauguration. Such 
are the prohibitionists, single-taxers etc. All these would-be 
saviors of humanity lack historic sense and philosophic train- 
ing of mind. They arc delightfully puerile in their Utopian 
faith in the miraculous power of legislation on paper, and 
do not see the forest, because stubbornly insisting on looking 
at one tree only. They imagine themselves to be Joshuas, 
commanding the sun of industrial evolution to stop at the 
Ajalon of dwarfed capitalism. 

Socialism lias another more sensible and cheering message 
for humanity. Its watchword is "Forward! Forward!" It 
recognizes the absurdity of all the attempts to turn the wheel 
of historical development backward, it considers as insane the 
advice to undo all the marvelous achievements of science ap- 
plied to arts. It is primarily an educational movement. Its 
task consists in teaching people to conform their philosophy 
of life, their social ideals and moral principles to the new in- 
dustrial conditions. 

The economic structure of our modern society is clearly 
drifting towards the socialization of industry, and Social- 
ism is preparing the people for this revolutionary change. 
The time is near when the tools of production and 
raw material will he turned over to the people engaged in pro- 
duction, when production will be carried on. not for profit, 
hut for consumption, when socialized production will be ear- 
ned on by society in the interest of society; in short, when 
society at large will be the master of its own economic destiny. 
Such a revolution in economic life demands a radical revision 
and readjustment of our moral conceptions; it demands a 
clear vision of the drift of our time and a great deal of en- 
thusiasm in the cause of human welfare. This clearness of 
vision, this enthusiasm and the gospel of a new system of 
ethics Socialism brings to the people. 

The passing capitalistic era with its profit system, with its 
zoological system of competition, with its eternal fluctuations 
between supply and demand, with its reckless speculation in 
human sweat and blood, with its brutal degradation of man- 
hood and womanhood, with its flagrant injustice and absurd- 
ities, did not fall from heaven, (or rather, rise from hell) 
into a community of innocent and reasoning beings. Capital- 
ism is the product of our own irrationality and perverted 



sense of right and wrong. Capitalism is passing in the mea- 
sure that we are outgrowing it morally and mentally. The 
mission of Socialism is to help and hasten our mental and 
moral growth into a higher, better, nobler social system. It 
can do this because it stands on firm historical ground and 
takes up the work just where it was left by the middle class 
French Revolution. Time has proved the futility of political, 
without economic, freedom and equality. Events have proved 
that freedom and equality in the purely political sense of 
these terms are mere worthless abstractions, a snare and de- 
lusion for the proletarian. Socialism demands economic 
democracy, economic liberty and equality as the only real 
democracy, liberty and equality worth striving for. 

"Well, all that is certainly very nice and sounds well ; but is 
it possible to change human nature so as to make men live 
like loving brothers ?" is the usual sceptical objection of wise 
practical men to all Socialistic arguments. This objec- 
tion is by no means new. The wise and practical man- 
eater certainly did object in the same way to the radical re- 
former who first suggested that to enslave prisoners of war. 
would be preferable to eating them. "It would indeed be very 
nice, but our fathers and forefathers ate their prisoners of war. 
You cannot change human nature." And yet centuries passed, 
and slavery formed the under structure of great civilizations, 
like those of the Hellenic and Roman empires. The wise 
slave-owner argued in the same way with the abolitionist, and 
yet the shackles fell from the limbs of a race whose only crime 
consisted in the pigment of its skin. Is it necessary to meet 
the objection of our wise and practical anti-socialists? It 
would be too tedious. 

The middle class, the most typical representatives of which 
are the capitalists, was not always as conservative, nay, some- 
times reactionary, as it appears at present: far otherwise. 
The absolute power of the kings and emperors of Europe, 
owing to which the nobility and clergy occupied the most 
privileged position, was a thorn in the flesh of the middle 
class. The middle class was the carrier of the noble ideals 
of (political) freedom, equality and (do not laugh, dear 
reader) brotherhood. At the time of the French Revolution, 
it represented the advance guard of humanity. It fought 
nobly and conquered with the aid of proletarian blood, of 
course. This accomplished, the middle class hastened to 



forget its revolutionary traditions, and for obvious reasons. 
As long as their class interests coincided, or seemed to coin- 
cide, with the interests of the human race, the human cause 
was their cause, and no farther. Indeed political freedom 
proved to be an excellent thing without its economic counter- 
part for the "valiant possessor of the valuable," as Ruskin 
aptly defined rich people. Who enjoys economic freedom be- 
cause his is "valiant," can use political freedom as a means to 
get advantage over his less valiant fellow-citizens, as w r e wit- 
ness in Switzerland, France and the United States. The 
government of so-called free countrias is as easily run in 
the interests of a plutocracy as a monarchy in the interests 
of an aristocracy. The proletarian is left to his fate. He is 
doomed to be dependent on his only possession — his labor 
power as a ware in the market. All the insecurity, the fluctua- 
tions of supply and demand, competition and other beauties 
connected with the mercantile system, are burdening the 
broad shoulders of the dispossessed class of the people. The 
interests of this class are at present identical with the inter- 
ests of the human race. This class is, therefore, naturally 
the carrier of the highest ideals of the age, is the advance 
guard of humanity struggling for its emancipation. Social- 
ism is the mouthpiece of this struggle, its interpreter, its 
advocate and leader. Socialism must train the proletarian 
class and lead it against the hosts of capitalism. 



II. THE FIRST NATIONAL CAMPAIGN OF THE SO- 
CIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY. TTS SIGNIFICANCE 
AND NATIONAL IMPORT. 

After love, spring was, is and probably always will be a 
favorite subject with the poets of all zones. And indeed where 
can be found a more grateful subject for song? 
It evidently is more agreeable to behold a rapidly flowing 
brook than a frozen one; evident that flowers 
look and smell better than fallen leaves; that a long sunny 
day is more pleasant than a short, murky one ; that the arrival 
of hosts of feathered singers is preferable to their departure 
for shores unknown. The poet has the comparatively easy 
task of putting these and like natural phenomena in more or 
less euphonious sounds, and the susceptible hearts of all in- 
nocent youths and maidens will overflow with vague but 
beautiful emotions and bless the lucky rhymer. No wonder 
that there are so many spring poets. 

But we should like to transport one of these spring poets 
to the arctic regions and there let him try his skill and talent. 

The arctic spring has no fragrant flowers, no flowing 
brooks, no singing birds. And yet a true poet would be able to 
express in one way or another that mysterious "something," 
which forms the incomparable charm of the dawn of the year 
in the arctic zone. There is in the air the calm hopefulness 
and serene joy of the pure platonic love of a chaste maiden. 
Look around you ! The sun shines as bright, the sky is as clear, 
the snow as white, the trees are as barren as in winter. Never- 
theless everything in nature seems changed, transformed. 
You cannot tell in words, how and why, but you feel 
these changes and transformations intensely with all the 
fibres of your body, with all the strength of your soul. You 
feel more than you perceive with your eyes while the caressing 
rays of sunny skies ardently kiss away the icy fetters and 
snowy covers of the earth, that sleeping beauty. 

There were and are many gifted writers who have under- 
taken the comparatively grateful task of describing graphical- 
ly great historical events, the dawn of new eras, the spring of 
a new epoch in the life of nations. And all the noble enthusi- 
asts, the sober and honest thinkers, the great statesmen and 



modest, unknown toilers in the cause of humanity, feel them- 
selves indebted to these writers lor inspiration in the dark 
hours of pessimistic despair, for consolation in the exasperat- 
ing moments of unexpected failure, for the grand lessons 

they offer at a time when these lessons an 4 more precious than 
all the treasures of the earth. Bui there are not many writers 
who discern the signs of a time preceding some great trans- 
formation in the history of humanity — signs escaping the eyes 
of the ordinary observer. Such w r riters are prophets, seers in 
the true sense of the word. 

On the eve of great historical changes, as before the birth 
of Christy the dawn of the renaissance, the French revolution 
and the Declaration of Independence, there were only a few 
who understood rightly that the old regime had outlived its 
utility and was bound to go and make way for a new order of 
things. Everything around seemed to the superficial observer 
just as unchanged, solid and firm as in good olden times. 
But the Christs, the Van Houtens, the Mirabeaus and the 
Franklins knew better. They felt that mysterious "some- 
thing" which forms the charm of the dawn of new epochs in 
the history of humanity. They experienced the calm hope- 
fulness and pure joy of seers who are sure that their most 
ardent desires, their most sacred ideas and ideals are soon to 
be realized. They felt intensely in every fibre, w r ith all the 
strength of their great souls, the reviving rays of human rea- 
son and sympathy dispersing the dense darkness of the past 
and preparing a brighter future for generations to come. 
They felt this themselves and imparted these feelings to many 
of their more susceptible contemporaries and formed in such 
a way. 

L'armee de la pen see, 
L'armee toujours sacree. 
Qui fait a le progres 
Marcher Phumanite ! 

(The army of thought, the ever sacred army, which makes 
humanity move along the highway of progress). 

In our ow r n time, the winter of capitalism seems to 
have its full sway, with sheets of paper money for 
skies, with a golden eagle, as its sun, a silver dollar 
for its moon, and innumerable small coin for stars, with 



10 

^profit, competition and mammon as its holy trinity. 
Sordid selfishness, hypocritical religiosity, barren mer- 
cantilism, gross negligence of civic duties and social 
obligations, anarchistic industry based on the rule homo 
homini lupus, all these beauties of the capitalistic system 
reign supreme. 

And yet even in our sad times there is undoubtedly a mys- 
terious "something" in the air, which augurs a great change 
in the social-economic structure of humanity. This "some- 
thing" is no longer confined to single isolated seers, to small 
circles of new parties, to pioneers of great ideas and noble 
ideals. It is to be met with everywhere, in the general press, 
in the pulpit, in the court-room, in the theater, in political 
gatherings, in the sanctuaries of science and art. Only those 
who intentionally shut their eyes and ears do not see and hear 
these signs of the times, these death-knells of the mercantile 
system of society. It is true that these signs of the times are 
very frequently so blurred and intangible that they may seem 
insignificant if taken by themselves, but taken all in all they 
speak volumes. 

One presidential campaign in the United States is 
conducted in about the same way as another. The 
professional politicians of both old parties organize their 
forces, manufacture issues, work out platforms, shape 
party pledges, give birth to campaign catch-words, flood 
the country with "educational" campaign literature and 
oral eloquence, violently denounce their opponents and 
profess their great love and admiration for the common peo- 
ple. The thoughtless crowd, the cattle of the ballot box, 
shout and whoop and sell their birthright to either one or the 
other of the old parties for a mess of nasty pottage. After the 
campaign is over there may be some change in the personal 
constituency of the actors on the political arena, some shift- 
ing and readjustment of the stage decorations. The play 
enacted, however will remain ever the same — the exploitation 
of the unorganized many by the organized few, the merciless 
exploitation of the weak by the strong, the honest and simple- 
minded by the crafty and unscrupulous. 

Did I say this play will ever remain the same? No, not 
forever, but as long as any of the old parties, it is immaterial 
which, shall remain in power. And that cannot be very long. 
The middle class parties have no vital principles to incorpo- 



11 

rate, and a political party withonl vital principles is like a 
body without a soul. 

The dense ignorance and criminal good-nature of the peo- 
ple may for a short time allow the old parties to preserve the 
outward appearance of life. The "mene tekel upharsin" of 
the old parties, however, is written with fiery letters on the 
walls of the modern Belshazzars of Commereialism and Capi- 
talism. 

The Social Democratic party — the first Socialistic political 
organization, that reached national and international pro- 
portions in the United States — started its first national cam- 
paign under the brightest auspices. There was a demand, a 
pressing need, for a new, honest third party, a national politi- 
cal party which would unite all enlightened, public-spirited 
men who are opposed to our present commercial and capital- 
istic system and its corrolaries — the management of national 
affairs by the hirelings of the capitalistic and commercial 
classes in the interests of these classes solely, and to the de- 
triment of all the rest of the people, of toiling humanity with- 
out distinction of class. 

The strength of the capitalistic parties in our days is not 
in the capitalistic class itself, but in the ignorance and indol- 
ence of the people in general and especially in the utter de- 
moralization of the capitalistic mob. 

By the term "capitalistic mob" we mean the thoughtless 
crowd of people who — far from being capitalists themselves 
or having a ghost of a show to become capitalists — are always 
ready to back up the institutions of commercialism and capi- 
talism out of sheer stupidity and despicable success-worship. 
The power of the pro-slavery party of the South, just before 
the abolition, consisted likewise in the slavish trend of mind 
of the thoughtless crowd of retainers who could never afford 
to own a slave themselves. This ignorance, this indolence 
and demoralization were the most formidable enemies of the 
partv for the abolition of black slavery. 

The same ignorance, indolence and demoralization are the 
most formidable enemies of the Socialistic movement that 
undertakes the task of abolishing the slavery of the white 
wage-workers. 

The <urest way to victory for Socialism is by public en- 
lightenment, and the best means are agitation and propa- 
ganda. 



12 

The Social Democratic party entered into its first national 
campaign with no sordid aims and purposes of office-hunting 
or self-aggrandizement. Those chosen not as leaders but as 
chief servants of the party (every member of the party was a 
leader), had no personal ambition but were inspired by the 
opportunity to promote the great cause. 

The Socialistic movement is fully aware that the presiden- 
tial election is the axis around which all the political machin- 
ery of the country moves. It regards the office of the 
president, in its present shape, as a menace to the freedom of 
the people and is certainly opposed to the present system of 
election by party. It detests all the tactics of the old parties. 
It merely uses the presidential campaign as an excellent op- 
portunity for missionary work. It must fight the old parties 
with their own weapons on their own ground. 

The Socialistic movement has tried to open the eyes 
of the people to the evils of our present public institutions : 
to unmask fools, who parade as sages; rogues pretending to 
be models of honesty, and charlatans who profess to be emi- 
nent specialists; to show the hideous features of salaried 
back-yard politicians posing as statesmen, and to point 
out the difference between the purposeless loafing of super- 
fluous office-holders from genuine earnest work in the inter- 
est of the community. ' It has tried to lift the curtain of many 
a snug corner of our administration, honeycombed as it is 
with corruption. 

At the same time, however, it has tried to keep before the 
eyes of the people the great principles and ideals it represents. 
The critical and constructive work of the movement must 
go on at the same time. 

A clean work needs clean hands. 

Great principles and lofty ideals demand a great and lofty 
man as their representative. Such a man was the nominee of 
the Indianapolis convention, Eugene V. Debs. 

A truer heart and purer mind, a more sincere friend of toil- 
ing humanity has not been born in our country and century. 

"The time is ripe, and rotten ripe for change ; 
Then let it come; I have no dread of what 
Is called for by the instinct of mankind ; 
Xor think I that God's world will fall apart 
Because we tear a parchment more or less. 



ID 



Truth is eternal, bul her effluence. 
With endless change, is fitted to the horn-; 
Her mirror is turned forward to refled 
The promise of the future, not the past. 

11.' who would win the name of truly great 
Must understand his own age and the next. 
And make the present ready to fulfil 
Its prophecy, and with the future merge 
Gently and peacefully, as. wave with wave." 



14 
III. TWO PHILOSOPHIES OF LIFE. 

INDIVIDUALISM AND SOCIALISM, ANARCHISM AND KACEISM 

Science has not supplied us so far with a satisfactory de- 
finition of matter, and for obvious reasons. A definition is the 
result of comparing two or more similar subjects, eliminating 
the identical and fixing our attention exclusively on the pe- 
culiar and characteristic properties of these subjects. As all 
the world, including that mysterious something that we call 
our ego or soul, consists only of matter in various kinds and 
degrees of motion, a comparison of matter with something 
else which is not matter is impossible. The cause of various 
kinds and degrees of motion of matter, making up the ap- 
parently endless variety of the visible world is called energy. 
The two fundamental laws of nature are the indestructibility 
of matter and the conservation of energy. These two laws 
may be stated more comprehensibly as follows: Not a par- 
ticle of matter can be destroyed or created anew; matter is 
eternal. It may, however, undergo an endless chain of varia- 
tions, owing to the kind and degree of motion of its smallest 
parts in space, caused by the different manifestations of 
energy. Energy may be considered as a condition of matter, 
more consistently from the monistic point of view, than as a 
cause of this condition. Whatever our views of energy may 
be, the fact is established beyond any shadow of doubt, that 
energy is just as indestructible as matter itself. As one con- 
dition of matter may make place for another, one kind of 
energy may be transformed into another, but never lost to the 
world at large. The instinct of self-preservation in the living 
world is one of the corrolaries of the fundamental laws of 
nature just stated. If matter and energy were destructible, 
the material world w r ould not exist, if there were no instinct 
of self-preservation no life would be possible on earth. 

All the great achievements of human culture and civiliza- 
tion are due on one side to the ingenuity with which humanity 
has directed natural forces into artificial channels favorable to 
human life, and on the other side to the ardent instinct of 
self-preservation so deeply rooted in human nature, the pas- 
sionate desire to exist individually and racially. This in- 
stinct of self-preservation is a natural force." Natural forces 
are blind. The same wind that in its fury tears down build- 



I.J 

tags and destroys human life may be turned into useful 
channels and compelled to propel mills. The same applies 

to the instinct of self-preservation in human nature; it may 
be destructive and constructive according to the channels in 
which it moves. Even the most ignorant savage knows so 
much of nature as to be convinced of the futility of fighting 

natural forces. Rather the reverse is true; the savage turns 
the natural forces into so many deities, with which he colo- 
nizes his Olympus. It is childishly crude to regard the in- 
stinct of self-preservation as an evil called selfishness yhich 
must be eradicated, rather than a necessary force, which 
needs intelligence as a guide to life itself. 

Don Quixote fought windmills, but he had too much sense 
to fight wind itself, that means the air in its motion. That 
is just what our Utopian friend the revolutionary (anarchis- 
tic philosophers or philosophical anarchists) and conservative 
(middle-class philosophers of the ethical culturists and church 
moralists) individualists advocate. They propose to eradicate 
this fundamental social force and change human nature 
so as to take away from it the very motive of its existence, to 
cure a headache by decapitation, to build up a society by de- 
stroying the building material on hand and killing the builder. 
A more irrational undertaking is hardly imaginable. 

The Socialistic view of selfishness and the way to 
utilize it in the interests of the human race we have treated 
in some of our former articles and hope to treat later many a 
time. Let us here pass this phase of the problem and try 
to see how the instinct of self-preservation in humankind 
has originated tw r o diametrically opposed philosophies of life. 
Taking for granted that self-preservation is the fundamental 
force of life, we have to deal with the ways and means to 
direct it. Between two points — the starting point and point 
of final goal of a force (the term final is used in a 
relative sense), the shortest road is a direct line; the most 
economic road from the point of view of preservation of 
energy is the curved line of least resistance. This law of 
mechanics applies likewise to social life in general. On the 
lower stages of life, taking the desire, for food as the 
starting point and its satisfaction as the final point, the 
animal will directly reach for the food just as it presents itself 
to its feelings, without any consideration as to the ratio be- 
tween the energy to be expended and the end to be accom- 



1G 

plished. The higher an animal stands on the evolutionary 
ladder the more considerations of economy in energy enters 
into its mode of satisfying its needs, the more the line of 
least resistance is followed. Cunning and prevision take the 
place of brute force and immediate impulses, association is 
resorted to and the elements of social co-operation appear on 
the surface, as in the case of the ant, the bee and the herd 
animals. The individual arrives at the conclusion that his 
interests will be best served bv the somewhat roundabout way 
of apparently merging his individual interests into the sea of 
racial interests. This is the starting point of raceism, of 
which modern Socialism is the most typical expression, while 
individualism belongs to a lower stage of life and survives at 
present only as a hypocritical cant on the part of middle- 
class philosophers and as a Utopian dream of unphilosophic 
philosophical anarchists. Individualism celebrates its orgies 
in our present age of mercantilism and capitalism, and will 
die with it the ignominious death of a philosophy of brute 
force and slavery. Eaceism — the philosophy of Socialism — 
is gaining ground with every day, and will usher in a new, 
higher and nobler stage of culture and civilization and be the 
crowning glory of the human race, the religion of the future. 

There never was and certainly never will be a human crea- 
ture without some philosophy of life, without some theory 
about the non ego, the not myself, the outward world, and some 
conception about the mutual relations between the outward 
and the subjective inward world, generally called the human 
soul. We are justified in going even one step farther and ven- 
turing to state, that the higher types of animals have some 
rudimentary conceptions of their relations towards the out- 
ward world. Fanciful as this statement may appear, it is 
however true that a bird protecting its nest or a tiger hunting 
a weaker animal, each respectively acts in accordance with 
some conception, however crude, of its place in nature. The 
hackneyed distinction between instinct and mind is unsci- 
entific, as there is only a difference in degree between these 
two properties, or rather functions, of the brain. 

It is true that strictly speaking, there are as many concep- 
tions in life as there are human individuals, and that these 
variations increase with the progressive evolution of the in- 
dividuality. And yet we may very precisely distinguish be- 
tween two cardinal principles in the popular conception of 



17 

life, principles diametrically opposed t<>, nay, even excluding 
each other. 

One of these principles is ego-centrism, individualism, or 
anarchism. This principle is a survival of the exploded geo- 
centric and anthropomorphic theories, according to which the 
entire universe is created by some supernatural being for 
the special benefil of a certain chosen human unit inhabiting 
the grain of cosmic dust called earth. From this puerile 
point of view, the outward world is only to be considered as 
a means of satisfying the desires and cravings of animals. 
From such a view it logically follows that might is right. An- 
archism as a philosophy of life is as old as the oldest forms of 
life on earth. The prototype of an accomplished anarchistic 
philosopher in the animal kingdom is the tiger, just as an 
exploiter of human labor is an accomplished tiger in human 
shape. The tiger considers himself the sole object of the 
world's bounty, and therefore fully entitled to the flesh, 
blood and marrow of animals weaker than himself. The ex- 
ploiter of human labor is the representative of the same tiger 
philosophy, in spite of his outward appearance. 

The conception of life diametrically opposed to anarchism 
may be traced in its inceptive stage in the animal kingdom to 
the gregarious mammals. Life in herds presupposes some in- 
stinct of a social or racial nature. It is only natural that the 
racial instinct should reach its highest stage of development 
in the human kind. 

The underlying principle of race-consciousness (as op- 
posed to individual self-consciousness) is the recognition of 
the fact, that the interests of the individual are best served by 
their subjection to the interests of the aggregate. The plain 
principle of race-consciousness is nothing but the princi- 
ple of international socialism. Socialism is therefore primar- 
ily a philosophy of life based on the recognition of the pre- 
fect solidarity of the interests of all the members of human- 
kind. Socialism in the broadest sense of the term is as old as 
the human race. 

\U the Zoroasters, the Buddahs, the Moseses, Isaiahs and 
Christs, all the hoary seers of the past, who preached race- 
consciousness, were emotional or religious socialists. There 
is, however, a vast difference between the socialism expounded 
and propounded by the founders of great religions of the 
world, the half-rationalistic, Utopian or imaginary socialism 



18 

of a Thomas More, Babeuf, Fourier or Robert Owen, and the 
thoroughly critical socialism of Rodbertus and Marx. 

The Utopian socialists had no idea of society as a natural 
product of biological and anthropological development, as a 
complex result of the action, reaction, and co-operation of 
natural forces inherent in society. The Utopians rather 
thought, that society is entirely the result of the free play of 
human will and may be arbitrarily remodeled according to 
artificial designs or fancies at a moment's notice. The 
Utopians judged society from a high level of moral feeling 
and ideas (just as the religious teachers of the past) and also 
appealed to the higher*' Equalities of the human mind. Their 
conception of histor^^fts^horoughly metaphysical. 

Modern Socialism is the child of modern social conditions 
and a critical trend of mind. One of the most character- 
istic features of modern socialism is its so-called materialistic, 
or rather realistic conception of history, as opposed to the 
metaphysical conception of older schools. The great 
expounders of modern socialism, Rodbertus and Marx, first 
proved that not the will and whim of kings are the most 
important factors in the process of shaping the destinies of 
nations, but social and economic forces inherent in the masses 
and classes composing nations. They first proved that 
economic and social institutions are the result of these 
highly complex forces and subjected to evolutionary and re- 
volutionary, to progressive and regressive changes. They first 
investigated social and economic phenomena, using exact 
and strictly scientific methods. They first established the 
existence of laws, the mutual relations between causes and 
effects in social and economic life. They were the Bacons 
and Darwins of economics. They first attempted to base the 
ideals of the future on a rational conception of the past and 
present. Sociology is the science of the development 
of society. Modern socialism is the art of applying 
the results of scienticic investigations and deduction to 
the practical problems of human society. It is the 
meeting-ground of religion, rational ethics and pure 
science. Religion or rational ethics supplies the. 
motive, the why, while science shows the way how to accom- 
plish the true (not the mystical) salvation of humanity from 
the burden of spiritual and material anarchy, from the course 
of selfishness, the stupid subserviency to brute force and the 
arrogance of material wealth. 



1!) 



IV. SCIENCE AND ART IX THEIB RELATIONS TO 
SOCIALISM. 

Ts Socialism an idle fancy of noble dreamers, or an exact 
science founded on the impregnable rock of economic ma- 
terialism ? Is it a panacea for all the evils of humanity, or an 
antidote to the poison of capitalism — a kind of an antitoxin 
against the microbes of modern economic materialism? 

Frenchmen say : "A comparison is no reason," and yet an 
analogy elucidates sometimes more than volumes of scientific 
proofs. We will therefore make an attempt to answer the 
question put at the head of this note by using a comparison. 
Medicine, preventive and curative, is an art founded on the 
so-called natural sciences and on the knowledge of the human 
body. Rational medicine is impossible without this knowl- 
edge. A physician without it is a dangerous quack. Society 
exists, just as the human body, according to certain conditions 
of its life and activities. If these conditions are in accord 
with natural laws, society prospers, and vice versa. 

Human society can be, and is, studied by scientists. The 
science of society is known by the name of Sociology. 
Sociology is to society what natural sciences are to the human 
body — the real basis and foundation of its treatment in health 
and disease. Socialism, however, is the "art of Sociology," 
the "application of science to the practical problems of social 
life," the "materia medica," the hygiene and curative methods 
of the social body. This conception of Socialism is immensely 
broader and more harmonious than that of the economic ma- 
terialist, since it takes into consideration all the human wants 
instead of only the material ones. The social unit of the 
economic materialist is not a living human being, with all 
.his faults and passions, desires and ambitions, altruistic and 
egotistic inclinations, moral and immoral tendencies. This 
social unit is an abstraction, a man from whom all human 
traits are eliminated, except greed for possession of maternal 
goods. Economic problems play a great part in human 
life, and consequently in social life, too. But they do not 
constitute all of it. Economy as a science is a part of Soci- 
ology; the skeleton is a very important part of the human 
body: but a living* man is infinitelv more than a skeleton. 



20 

The science about the bones, osteology, is necessary for the 
general knowledge of the human body. But would it not be 
preposterous for osteologists to say that their science is 
all that is necessary for a practical physician? Economics 
are the osteology of human society, and to base on it the art 
of the treatment of society is simply preposterous. 

As the knowledge of all the parts of the human body is the 
condition sine qua non of a good physician, the knowledge of 
all the laws of the interrelations of human beings is neces- 
sary for every Socialist who deserves the name. Socialism 
is no longer an idle dream ; it is not a panacea, or a specific 
cure against a certain disease, it is not a science by and for 
itself. It is infinitely more than all that. It is the applica- 
tion of all the results of scientific investigation, of the results 
of human thought and noblest feelings to the problems of 
social life. Great is the dignity of a healer of the afflictions 
of the human body, and the preserver of health, but great are 
also his responsibilities. To be called a Socialist is the high- 
est compliment that can be paid by one man to another. To be 
a true Socialist is the highest distinction a man can attain on 
earth. But how many deserve to be called so, and how many 
pretend to be Socialists, without any shadow of right to be 
counted as such? It is not enough to repeat thoughtlessly 
certain ready-made maxims and sentences in order to be a 
Socialist. It is necessary to study society in all its aspects 
and phases, to read, think and investigate much and long, 
in order to have the right to call one's self a Socialist. One in- 
dependent thinking man is worth thousands of thoughtless 
repeaters of other people's ideas. It is a great and noble thing 
to "make Socialists/' but the proper way to do it is to make 
them study, think and judge for themselves, to put them on 
their own feet. Feeling alone, sincere and deep as it may be, 
is not a secure foundation for a soldier of Socialism. Knowl- 
edge, and conviction coming from knowledge, and independ- 
ent thought, are the most precious qualities of a healer of 
social wrong and a true social reformer. The so-called social- 
istic leaders who are opposed to academic study of society, 
because they "want fighters/' are false prophets. Socialism 
in order to succeed must conduct an educational crusade. 
German Socialists owe their success to the systematic educa- 
tion of the masses, started by the genial Ferdinand Lassalle 
and kept up to our day. The Socialists of England try to 



21 

do the same. The American Socialists mu.-t adopt the same 
policy. An ignorant soldier is a poor fighter. 

S < ietv is not an organism, but an organization. Indeed, 
it is the highest stage of organization of matter to be met with 

in nature. 

S Knology is a natural science in the full meaning of the 

term. Society is governed by the same laws that rule the 
rest of the organic and inorganic world. The proper method 
o( studying society consists in the analysis of the forces which 
form and keep societies alive. Before we begin this analysis, 
however, we must cast a cursory glance at the probable stages 
of the development of society among primitive men. 

The first stage consisted probably of a grouping of men in 
small numbers for the purpose of a more successful acquire- 
ment of food. The second stage was the association of larger 
numbers of men in consequence of their more rapid multipli- 
cation due to increased sagacity in providing food. The estab- 
lishment of some rude forms of government formed the third 
stage of social life. Tribal development can be accepted as 
the fourth stage of the association of man, eventually result- 
ing in the union of tribes into nations, and the union of 
nations into higher aggregates of a cosmopolitan character. 

Let ns now see what are the social forces of which we have 
spoken. Society is an aggregation of men, and we have there- 
fore to consider the forces of human activity in particular in 
order to understand their general and complex manifestations 
in society. The animal world is governed by two primary 
principles. One is the self-preservation of the individual, 
and the other the propagation of the race. These principles 
are manifested in corresponding desires. These desires are 
natural forces, compiling their agents to perform certain 
acts leading to certain results. The human animal makes 
no exception to these primary principles of organic life. 

Hunger, thirst and cold are the most powerful stimulants 
to human activity. It is want of food, clothing and shelter 
that compels men to work, to create industries, to accumulate 
wealth, to proclaim rights of property, to fix rules of con- 
duct, to found cities and establish states, to inaugurate wars 
and arrange peace. The great difference between man and 
the brute creation consists not in the desire of the individual 
to live and reproduce his kind, but rather in the method of 
gratifying these blind bui strong desires, which Schopenhauer 



22 

calls the "will." In animals the method is brute force, form- 
ing a straight line between the point of desire and the point 
of gratification. In man the method is indirect and along the 
line of least resistance. Nature is prodigal in its methods, 
man economical. Nature has efficient causes, but no aims or 
purposes. Man does everything with an aim or purpose in 
view. 

Why does the human being employ indirect methods, while 
the rest of the living world employs direct ones ? The answer 
is found in the fact of the peculiar spiritual mind of man. 
Nobody denies now that man is an animal, but very many for- 
get that he is immensely more, that his reasoning faculty ele- 
vates him far above the rest of the living world. This rea- 
soning intelligence in man constitutes a powerful force in 
human society. Men use their intellects to their own advan- 
tage. They observe and study nature in all its manifestations 
and use the acquired knowledge for their practical purposes. 

The knowledge of nature is science; the application of 
science is called art. The primitive appliances of the savage 
of the Stone Age for hunting animals, his rude cave dwelling, 
the manufacture of skin clothing, the discovery and produc- 
tion of fire, all were the results of some crude knowledge of 
the laws of nature, and an awkward attempt to apply them 
to the needs of practical life. All the progress of the human 
race was of necessity along these lines of knowledge. 

But there was another field of knowledge, the knowledge of 
human nature itself. Increased intellect, deepened sympathy, 
and refined feeling resulted not only in the perfection of 
food, shelter and clothing, in the development of con- 
ceptions of duty and justice and in economic progress, 
but it created the desire for fine arts, evolved the 
higher feelings of patriotism, and the desire to serve 
humanity out of the purest motives of usefulness to 
the race. The knowledge of nature and men is 
a means to these ends. Once we know what must happen 
under certain conditions, we may either modify these condi- 
tions or take precautionary measures. Knowledge enables 
men to artificially change their environment. All the culture 
and civilization of the world is in this sense artificial — the 
result of art, of applied science. It is the indirect method 
of gratification. 

The return to nature advocated by Rousseau would mean 



23 

return to animalism, the degradation of man to the brute 
level. The artificiality of society is noi only not unnatural, 
hut is in entire harmony with nature. Society in its advanced 
condition contains both — highly developed individualism and 
co-operation in all fields of activity. Nature works through 
competition, i. e., through the survival of the fittest in the 
struggle for existence. Men as rational beings prefer the 
economical method of eo-operation which leads to the sur- 
vival of the best. Nature destroys its weak children Avithout 
mercy: men protect theirs with love and sympathy. Compe- 
tition is a brute force, co-operation a humane method, 
founded on rational principles of conservation of energy and 
economy of forces. 

Even monopolization of transportation, exchange, finance 
and industry is a higher stage than chaotic competition. It 
is not true that competition leads to cheapness and monopoly 
to higher prices. Competition is always wasteful and un- 
economical. If monopolies lead to higher prices, it is not 
on account of the inherent quality of the organization itself, 
but in consequence of the unchecked avarice of the owners of 
the concerns. 

The real remedy for monopolies is not their abolition, but 
their nationalization. 

The overwhelming power of so-called capital, as opposed to 
so-called labor, the superiority of the so-called monopolies as 
opposed to the great numbers of consumers, consists only in 
the fact of their organization, as opposed to competition. 
The laborers and consumers compete with each other, while 
the capitalists and monopolists co-operate. 

The real way out of this dilemma of seemingly opposed in- 
terest is organization of the consumer and worker. 

To expect success in a fight against organization with the 
weapons of competition is just as reasonable as it would be to 
expect victory for the scattered warriors of an Indian tribe 
armed with arrows, in battle with a company of trained 
soldiers armed with rifles of the latest pattern. Another 
great popular fallacy is the principle of "lesser faire," 
"lesser passer," — let alone — in the domain of social life. His- 
torically, the principle of extreme individual liberty and all 
possible limitations of the controlling powers of the state 
was a negation of the extreme paternalism of the French 
monarchv. The let-alone-policy long ago outlived its 



24 

usefulness. Thoughtless, illogical and ignorant people have 
built a whole system on this foundation of sand. Misuse 
of a principle does not prove its inherent inadequacy. The 
transgression of legitimate limits by the French or other de- 
spotic governments does not prove that government in general 
is hurtful.' Just the reverse must be the strictly logical con- 
clusion. If a government under unfavorable conditions may 
be a powerful agency for evil, the counterpart of this pro- 
position must be equally time. That means that government 
under favorable conditions must be a powerful agency for 
good. Organized society is an artificial creation of men 
with the purpose of the best possible accommodation of its 
individual members. It is a mistake to look on government 
as something apart from the people and hostile to their inter- 
ests. The so-called evils of government are due to misgovern- 
ment or false government. Blessings would result from a 
truly social democratic government. 



V. ANARCHISM FROM THE SOCIALISTIC POINT 

OF VIEW. 

Every error contains a grain of truth, and every truth the 
germs of error. The modus operandi of people without 
principles in dealing with opponents consists in throwing all 
the "ists" in one 1 heap and labelling them indiscriminately 

as cranks and miscreants. "But people with genuine convic- 
tions and ideas of their own can well afford to be just to 
those who honestly disagree with them. Truth fortu- 
nately cannot he monopolized by anybody, and sincere truth- 
seeking is more precious than the possession of truth itself. 

The object of this chapter is to examine sine ira et studio 
the arguments, philosophy and ideals of anarchism, from the 
Socialistic point of view. There is no line of thought so 
alien, so diametrically opposed to Socialism, as so-called 
anarchism. And yet no teaching is so often mistakenly 
confounded with Socialism by the popular mind as anarchism. 
And, what signifies far more, the mixing up of these two 
theories of future <oeial development is not altogether due 
to ignorance or malice. 

There are indeed quite a number of points in common 
between Socialism and philosophical anarchism. Both 
theories are essentially revolutionary. Both agree in their 
negation of the present state of society. Both are in favor of 
free association and opposed to the zoological struggle for 
existence called competition. The points of divergence are. 
however, very important. Socialism stands first of all for 
TRUE "equality," for EQUAL opportunities to all members 
of society, for justice. Philosophical anarchists insist chiefly 
on individual liberty. Socialism considers as paramount 
the interests of the race : anarchism of the person. Socialism 
is based on the principle, "the highest boon to the largest 
number/" the anarchists want to guard the rights and privi- 
leges of minorities. Socialism demands in return from each 
member of society the fulfillment of certain duties. Anarch- 
ism knows no limits to the part of the common produce and 
wealth which may be consumed by each individual. To the 
Socialist the state of government is all, and all are the state. 
The anarchist abhors the state and government with the 
superstitious fear entertained by the orthodox priests of the 



medieval ages towards the evil one. Indeed the relation of 
the anarchists towards the state cannot be characterized 
better than by the expression superstition, as we shall prove 
later. 

Socialists wish to organize society according to a general 
plan, founded on certain principles of science and ethics. 
Anarchists recognize only the chaotic play of "wills/ 3 of single 
individuals, which will eventually result in voluntary co- 
operation and association. Such are in a nutshell the differ- 
ences between Socialistic and anarchistic doctrines. 

Before however we venture to analyze the soundness of the 
anarchistic antithesis to Socialism, we have to touch briefly 
upon two groups of men, who are quite frequently identified 
with philosophical anarchists without the slighest justification. 
I mean the individualists of the Spencerian school on one side 
and the Hoedels, Oteros, Nobilings, Passanantes, Kavachols, 
and tutti quanti on the other side. The middle class in- 
dividualists are anything but revolutionary in their ideals and 
tendencies. They worship zoological evolution and expect the 
salvation of humanity from the exploitation of the weak by 
the strong, from competition, and other beauties of our pre- 
sent social system. Their practical ethics may be summed up 
in their golden rule : "Each for himself and the devil take 
the hindmost." On ever} 7 attempt of organization and con- 
trol of social forces they look wdth disfavor as slavery in 
disguise. "Let alone and evolution will do the rest," is their 
somewhat fatalistic maxim. All kinds of egotism and rude 
selfishness may pass under this pseudo-scientific cover. In- 
dividualists of this stamp are in more than one sense anarch- 
ists, but it would be an injustice to such philosophical 
anarchists as Peter Krapotkin and Elisee Eeclus to be classed 
with the champions of our present industrial anarchy. 

The assassins of persons of high social standing, some of 
whose names we mentioned above, we would call Herostra- 
tians, from their prototype, Herostratus. This degenerate 
burned one of the wonders of ancient Greece, the temple of 
Diana of Ephesus, from no other motive than morbid desire 
of fame. 

The Herostratians are a pathological set of men. Not able 
to be great, they want to be notorious. Their acts of violence 
have no relation whatever to any particular social doctrine. 
It is the morbid ambition of people who have nothing to lose 



except their wretched lives, and Dothing to gain except the 
thoughtless admiration of their like, that moves their dagger 
or Throws their bomb. Born in misery and squalor, reared 
among the scum of the population, these step-children of 
society are full of hatred towards all who seem to rule it. 
Poorly, if at all, educated, they are unable either to see any- 
thing below the surface of social relations, or to distinguish 
between systems and persons seemingly representing these 
systems. 

This class of altruistic criminals ought to be treated like 
irresponsible lunatics. The rulers of our present society 
however prefer to surround them with the halo of martyrdom 
for an idea, with the purpose of iinpressing the popular mind 
with the belief that all the radical movements are pernicious 
and senseless. Once the popular prejudice is created, every act 
of the Herostrations is used as a pretext for repressive mea- 
sures against "all the enemies of society," that is, all radicals. 
It is a notable fact that countries like Italy, Spain and Russia, 
the most backward politically, socially and economically, 
where the people are kept in dense ignorance and dire dis- 
tress, produce most of these Herostratians. They are the 
blind tools of Nemesis pronouncing the memento mori to a 
system of affairs that has outlived its usefulness and is about 
to pass into eternity. Without desiring it, the Herostratians 
best serve the retrograde and conservative elements of society 
and retard considerably the march of progressive ideas. 

But let us return to the teachings of the philosophical 
anarchists. Says Peter Krapotkin: "The essence of col- 
lectivism may be reduced to these points: Partial com- 
munism in the possession of instruments of production and 
education. Competition among individuals and groups for 
bread, housing and clothing. Individualism for works of art 
and thought. The state's aid for children, invalids and old 
people. The state will be substituted for the employer and 
his role of buyer and overseer of labor will be still an odious 
tyranny." Prince Krapotkin obviously does not care to dis- 
tinguish between competition and emulation. To competition. 
Socialists are opposed from principle (and with more justifi- 
cation than individualists, however radical in their views) 
but they have no objection to the incentive of emulation. 
Obviously, however, the cardinal point in the criticism of col- 
lectivism is with Prince Krapotkin, as with all anarchists, the 



negation of the state or government. State and government 
are their bugaboos. According to them a state or government 
is not only essentially bad, but sure to spoil the best men, once 
they come in contact with it. Xo state or government so far 
has been free from abuse and this is considered a valid argu- 
ment against that institution in general. 

The irrationality of such a conception will become clear at 
once if we apply the same method of reasoning to association. 
Associations of men are liable to be exploited by a few 
unscrupulous people to the detriment of the rest. Does 
it follow from this that associations are pernicious in- 
stitutions ? Would not the opposite conclusion be rather 
more logical ? What can be abused can be used also ! Anar- 
chists insist so much on liberty, that they forget equality. 
But what is liberty without equality ? Is it not a snare and a 
delusion in our great republic ? 

A recently immigrated German laborer defined liberty as 
follows: "If you have no money to buy bread, you are at 
liberty to go hungry ; if you have no money to hire a lodging 
you are free to sleep on the street.:" Remarkably enough, 
the anarchists are not in the least afraid of the abuses of 
liberty "because only those who do nothing make no mis- 
takes." To the anarchists the state is personified in a 
ferocious-looking policeman with a vicious club in his hand, 
striking to the right and left. The state is to the anarchist 
something outside of the people, not an organic growth with 
a justification in the past and capable of development; it 
was, is and shall always be an angel with the sword, keeping 
humanity out of the anarchistic paradise for its sins of com- 
mission and omission. The anarchists seldom take even the 
trouble to define what they mean by the expressions state and 
government, taking it for granted that everybody will have 
in view the state in which he happens to live. They do not 
take into account the historical perspective. 

Let us try to define what we Socialists mean by state or 
government. We mean by it nothing more nor less, than the 
direct administration of all public affairs by the people itself. 
The highest aim and purpose of government or. if you prefer, 
national administration, is the attainment of the highest pos- 
sible ideal of ethics, and the state must be looked upon as 
the means of attainment of the highest possible happiness of 
mankind. The rights of individuals must be sacrificed only 



29 

as far and as long as it is absolutely necessary to the welfare 
of society at large. Coercion is not an essential function, of 
the state. Attractive is preferable to prohibitive legislation, 
and enlightened citizenship is possible without the use of 
force. Politics may be treated as a special science, which in 
conjunction with political economy and jurisprudence, repre- 
sents a part of the system of humanitarian sciences known 
as social science. The object of the science of polities is the 
State, the theory of state-craft, and the description of the 
different forms of government in the past and present. 

The origin of the state w r as supposed by the scientists and 
thinkers of the past century to be a voluntary agreement be- 
tween the citizens of a given locality, a "Social contract," 
as Rou<seau styled it. It was supposed that people lived 
originally in a so-called natural anarchistic state and then 
agreed to create the state. The anarchists still adhere to this 
myth, reminding us of the teaching of the church about the 
fall of man, but all scientists have abandoned it for the histor- 
ical point of view. Man is a gregarious being. On the lowest 
stages of civilization there are already noticeable some ele- 
ments of authority, this essential attribute of the state. 
There "was a time when the state tried to subject all the 
economical activity of the nation to the fiscal interests of 
the state treasury. Hence arose a violent opposition upon 
the part of a certain economic school. The opposition was 
well founded, and led to the policy of non-interference of the 
State in economic affairs. The era of industrial anarchy 
called capitalism was the result. It went from bad to worse. 

The Socialistic state will resume the control of the 
economic functions of society. . The purpose and 
aim of the control will be purelv ethical, the pro- 
tection of the human individuality from the fate of 
a mere accessorv to tools of production, the preserva- 
tion of life, health and well-being of the toiling masses, 
ft will not be the state of the past or present, but a 
new institution, corresponding to the needs and demands of 
a new social system. It will be the highest stage of human 
consociation attainable. Each citizen will have certain 
functions to perform and the duty of the state will consist 
in such a correlation of these functions, as to insure the most 
perfect effectiveness in their performance, for the entire 
society. As the element of profit and exploitation, com- 



30 

petition and compulsion; will be entirely eliminated, it will 
be the obvious interest of each and all to perforin their respec- 
tive social functions in the best way possible. Those who may 
feel the burdens of citizenship in the Socialistic state too 
hard will have the choice of leaving it. But the attractions 
and advantages of a Socialistic organization will undoubtedly 
be so great that cases of dissatisfaction with the whole system 
will be very few indeed. 

Says G. F. Eatzentofer in his "Positive Philosophy of Social 
Life." "He, who belongs to his social group only condi- 
tionally and unreliably, becomes an egoist. But in so far as 
such reflections spring from the interest of the species, or 
finally from social interests, they guide the man to moral 
renunciation of self, whereby he receives impetus to co-ordi- 
nate or even sub-ordinate his individual weal to that of his 
community. This is an evolutionary phenomenon, which 
points to the underlying principle of all creation. The pro- 
cess of unifying mutual relationship manifests itself in the 
face of the individualistic atomizing impetus as indispensable 
for the natural development of society. The degeneration 
caused through individualization leads partly to voluntary, 
partly to forced, sub-ordination of individuals in a social 
union. The more life incites individual interests, the more 
important is social constraint to limit the degenerating dif- 
ferentiation, in order not to endanger the species and its 
social structures through war of all against all." 

Clearly there is nothing arbitrary in the phenomena of 
social life. Every phenomenon of social life is subject to the 
general laws of causation. The state is no exception to this 
rule. It is a product of evolution, and is bound to evolve, as 
humanity progresses on the road of rationalization and mor- 
alization of its social institutions. 

The attitude of anarchists toward the state is obviously 
not only unscientific, but truly irrational. This attitude is 
simply a survival of the fantastic conceptions of a Jean 
Jacques Eousseau, about the blessings of a "natural state," 
which never and nowhere existed. It is not a progressive, but 
rather a retrograde attitude, an attempt to return to a state 
of things characteristic only of the lowest stages of animal 
life. The anarchists deny the state in the name of the free- 
dom of the individual. But they take, in their short-sighted- 
ness, the means for an end. 



31 

Freedom is only one of the means of human happiness, 

But freedom alone cannot guarantee happiness to men. 
Rather the reverse of this is true. Even anarchists recognize 
that man is a social being. And social life is unthinkable 
without some limitations, voluntary or otherwise, of the free- 
dom of the individuals composing it. The anarchistic theory 
is purely negative and therefore purely destructive. It works 
to destroy authority (how is it about the "authority of 
science ?") in all its aspects, it demands the abrogation of 
all laws and the abolition of the mechanism that serves to 
impose them, it refuses all hierarchical organizations. 

But when trying to build — they turn Socialists, they then 
"preach free agreement, establishment of such relations be- 
tween men that the interests of each should be the interests 
of all." Of course the anarchists pretend to insist on FREE 
agreement, not on free AGREEMENT, which last is Social- 
istic pure and simple. We are sure, however, that every im- 
partial man will call it a distinction without a difference. 
Anarchists are against repressive measures as a means of 
maintaining a certain moral level and rely rather on moral 
teaching and the practice of mutual help. But so do the 
Socialists likewise. Anarchists are very solicitous about the 
development of individual originality. But Socialism will 
be the best soil for development of originality of thought, of 
exquisite taste, and inventive spirit. The satisfaction of the 
lower needs will not consume so much time and energy as at 
present, and there will be splendid opportunities to develop 
the higher faculties of mind. 

Minorities are not less near and dear to the hearts of 
anarchists than individual freedom. They claim that the 
Socialistic state will of necessity be a rule of the majority 
over the minority. But how about the minority of those who 
may refuse to enter into the FREE agreement? "Will they 
be obliged to take to the woods ?" As we see, individual free- 
dom; the rights of minorities are the good genii and the state 
is the evil spirit. 

The evil spirit must be expelled, and the good genii care- 
fully guarded. There is considerably more heat than light in 
this creed. We call this dogmatic view of State, individual 
freedom and minority right, a creed, because there is no valid 
proof behind it, because it is rather a product of emotion than 
reason. 



How much deeper and broader is the Socialistic conception 
of the future of society ! Socialism does not destroy anything* 
not even capitalism. Capitalism is bound to work out its 
own destruction. Socialism lets the dead bury their dead 
and uses every available material in the present stage of 
society for the upbuilding of the future society. It lias 
neither prejudice nor superstitions, neither fetishes nor pet 
genii, which it blindly worships. It does not mix up means 
with aims. It is strictly evolutionary and critical in its 
philosophy, clear in its ideals, and appeals with equal suc- 
cess to the intellect and to the hearts of men. Anarchism 
is the reduction to absurdity of the individualism of Herbert 
Spencer, and the individualism of Spencer is half-way 
anarchism. 

There is no justification in the criticism of our present in- 
dustrial anarchy upon the part of anarchists as such. We 
mean, there is no logic, no consistency in it. Our present 
industrial anarchy, with its principle, homo horn in is lupus, 
is the result of the chaotic play of individual wills that ought 
to gladden the heart of every true anarchist. And still all 
honest anarchists denounce it almost in the same terms as the 
Socialists. Why? Simply because there is confusion 
of thought in their heads. What reason indeed have the 
anarchists to expect wonders from the chaotic play of in- 
dividual wills in the future when they condemn its results 
in the present society ? Is it not puerile to expect that wolves 
will enter into voluntary agreement with lambs to co-operate 
in "establishing of such relations between them, that the 
interests of each should be the interests of all ?" Where is 
the foundation to this delightful optimism ? 

In all nature the species, (the race,) is paramount. The 
individual plays only a secondary part. Nature is very much 
concerned about the preservation of the kind, but cares very 
little about the preservation of the individual. Should hu- 
manity make an exception to that rule, that is, should the 
interests of the human aggregation be less important than 
that of a single unit ? 

Is not the term freedom itself misleading? Only those 
who do not believe in fixed relations between effects and causes 
(and their number is fortunately growing smaller every day) 
recognize a free will. But if there is no free will, what is 



left of individual freedom? Is not freedom a mere negation 
of the opposite condition — im-freedom, dependence, Blavery 
in some shape or form ? 

Once more we call attention to the fact , that the exponent- 
of anarchistic ideas, Bakounin, Krapotkin and other.-, were 
born and reared in countries whose government is below an\ 

criticism: where the state is the worst possible oppressor and 
exploiter of the people. Naturally enough, the justified nega- 
tion of the state and governmenl with which they were ac- 
quainted, turned into negation of the state and government in 
general. It is also natural that the prophets of anarchism 
should hot succeed in countries so badly governed as Spain 
and Italy. This is a natural result of just indignation and 
noble emotion, although irrational and illogical in conception. 
With the same sharp knife we use to cut our bread some man 
may cut another's throat, hut that would he no argument 
against the use of knives in general. It is natural that bad 
government should breed anarchists, people who are super- 
ficial enough to he satisfied with the negation of the use of 
a tool because it is misused under their very eyes. But ne- 
gation of that kind can not satisfy thoughtful people, le- 
gation will only lead them to careful observation and study. 
and observation and study are bound to lead them to social- 
ism. 

We believe we are justified in claiming that there is not 
one economist and sociologist of note in this country and 
abroad, who is not more or less socialistic in his views. Even 
the old political parties begin to feel uneasy on account of 
the rapid spread of socialistic ideas and emotions among the 
people and try to throw sand in their eyes by adopting 
pseudo-socialistic planks and programs. Such was the State 
Socialism of Count Bismarck, such is the municipal owner- 
ship howl in the United States. It is hypocrisy, of course. 
But hypocrisy is the tribute paid by vice to virture, it is the 
involuntary recognition of a surely coming dreaded power. 

It is not Socialism that prepares the field for anarchism. 
It is anarchism that clears the ground for socialism. Dis- 
satisfaction leads to negation, negation to thought and study, 
and thought and study to the affirmation of socialism. 

In conclusion let us answer the question: What should 
be the attitude of the socialists towards philosophic anarch- 
ism ? We think this attitude should be friendly, courteous, 



34 

but reserved and uncompromising. There is not the slightest 
doubt of the honesty and high-mindedness of such men a* 
Peter Krapotkin or Elisee Keclus. As we have seen, they are 
practically socialistic in their views, still they are enemies 
of socialism, paradoxical as it may sound. Logically they 
are the natural allies of the capitalistic individualists; emo- 
tionally, they are in accord with socialists. Poor fellows ! 
they may well exclaim with Faust: "Zwei Herzen, ach, 
wohnen in meiner Brust !" Their ideals are of a past that 
never existed, of a paradise that could not be lost because it 
was never found, a Utopia, a nowhere, a Nirgendslieim. The 
few grains of truth contained in the anarchistic philosophy 
are, as we have seen not anarchistic, but rather socialistic. 
The rest is composed of the sand of individualism, on which 
one can only build airy castles, peopled with phantoms of the 
imagination. 

Having no positive ideas and ideals of its own — anarchism 
is bound to expire long before the socialist state will be 
inaugurated. As soon as bad government — the only raison 
d'etre of anarchism shall pass away, nothing will be left for it 
to feed upon. The present state or government is the Carthage 
of the anarchists, and they are never tired of repeating the 
key-note of all their philosophy : "Ceterum censeo — Carth- 
aginem esse delendam !" But when the new Socialistic 
Carthage shall be built on the ruins of the old one, the 
anarchists will go out of business. 






VI, TILTS AT THE WINDMILL OF STATE SOCIAL- 

ISM. 

What is state Socialism? Who advocates and who opposes 
state Socialism? These and similar questions suggest them- 
selves to many earnest students and observers of modern 
social economic conditions and theories. Capitalistic anarch- 
ists agree with the proletarian anarchists in their attitude 
towards the complex political institution called state, at least 
in theory. The reactionary individualist of the Manchester 
school and the revolutionary anarchist of action of the red-hot 
type both look upon the state as an evil. There is. however, 
a diversity of opinion as to the degree of toleration accorded 
to the bugaboo state, between the right and left wing of con- 
temporary anarchy. The right wing, the capitalists, want to 
limit the prerogatives and functions of the state to police 
duties, to the protection of personal liberty and private pro- 
perty, while the left wing, the proletarian anarchist, demands 
the entire abolition of the state. This diversity of opinion 
is due mainly to the difference between the social economic 
status of those wings. The capitalist has in his possession 
worldly goods and tries to keep them with the aid of a police 
state. He needs law and order, that would put him in a 

position to do as he "d d pleases" in his private business 

affairs in general, and treaty his employes as he "d d 

pleases" in particular. Any other function of the state, ex- 
cept police functions, is decried by the capitalist as paternal- 
ism and state Socialism. The proletarian anarchist abhors 
the very law and order his twdn brother in philosophy de- 
mands as a necessary evil. The proletarian anarchist has no 
worldly goods to lose. He sees in the modern state an in- 
geniously regulated and skillfully manipulated machine for 
the exploitation of the economically weak by the powerful. 
The capitalist is shrewd enough to make the state subservient 
to his personal and class interests. The proletarian anarchist 
cannot conceive of any kind of state except a police state. He 
is politically blind in the same sense as there are color-blind 
people. Indeed this political Daltonism makes the revolu- 
tionary anarchists the allies of capitalism and fanatical op- 
ponents of Socialism. 

The respectable individualist of the Spencerian type and 



36 

the slum proletarian of anarchy agree in their denunciation 
of any school and all schools of Socialism as state Socialism, 
bent on the destruction of personal freedom. The extremes 
meet. The bourgeois fights Socialism by all available means; 
this is natural enough. There is, however, much that is trag- 
ically comic in the assistance he gets from the so-called revo- 
lutionary anarchism. The future historians of the spiritual 
life of our age of contradictions will have to unravel the 
enigma of the mental aberration called philosophical anarch- 
ism, a mental aberration causing mQn ]jke Peter Krapotkin 
to waste their great mental and moral capacities in a cause 
doomed by its very nature to barrenness of results and phrase- 
ological Don Quixotism. Anarchism minutely describes what 
its devotees must abstain from doing, but it is mere negation as 
far as any positive program of action is concerned. Indulg- 
ence in phraseological gymnastics of pseudo revolutionary 
denunciation of everybody and everything non-anarchistic, 
i. e., of all the world and all there is on it and in it — cannot 
be considered as action, but rather as a harmless amusement. 
This absence of any positive program of action (the only 
logical deduction of which is non-resistance to evil) makes it 
the more fascinating for some indolent minds, is the secret of 
its success in certain society circles and of its tendency to 
become the official philosophy of the bourgeoisie. 

Let us, however, leave the revolutionary phrasemongers 
of anarchism and their allies, the conservative individualists, 
to their fate and engage in proving how far their ideas about 
state Socialism are correct. Marx explains the process of 
Socialization of industry as follows: "The proletariat will 
turn the tools of production at the start into the property 
of the state. By this very act, however, the proletariat de- 
stroys itself as the proletariat and does away with 
class distinction and class differences, does way with 
state as state." Does this sound like state Social- 
ism? Engels in his "Development of Socialism," expresses 
the belief that after the inauguration of the co-operative 
commonwealth the struggle of individual existence with its 
conflicts and excesses will be eliminated and the (police) state 
will, having nothing to repress, die away. In his "Anti- 
Duehring," Engels unequivocally recognizes the state of the 
past and present as an organ of political repression. Bern- 
stein defines Democracv as the negation of class rule or class 



privileges of any kind. "Democracy means the equality of 
rights among all the members of the community. Tins 
equality of rights is the barrier against majority rule in each 
actual case of popular government The more this concep- 
tion of Democracy penetrates into the consciousness of so- 
ciety, the more will Democracy he identified with the highest 
possible degree of freedom for all. Of course Democracy 
docs not mean the negation of all law. What distinguishes 
a Democracy from other political systems is the elimination 
of laws creating exclusive rights, laws creating inequalities 
among the members of society. In our age it is almost a cer- 
tainty that a majority of a Democratic community will ab- 
stain from making laws restricting for a considerable length 
of time personal freedom. The majority of today may turn 
out to he the minority of tomorrow and any law calculated 
to suppress the minority may have retroactive influence on 
the lawmakers themselves. Socialism does not want to create 
a new bondage (Gehundenheifr). The individual shall he 
free, of course, not in the metaphysical sense, as the anarch- 
ists dream, i. e., free from all duties toward society, hut free 
from all economic pressure in the choice of calling and in 
his movements. Such freedom for all can be accomplished 
by the means of organization." 

That modern Socialism is not tied up by any special 
scheme of state organization will be obvious from the fol- 
lowing words of the known Socialistic writer, Dr. David of 
Mainz : "The final goal of Socialism is the greatest possible 
welfare of all. This is the essential part of it. All the rest 
in our program has to be considered only as a means to at- 
tain that final goal. The socialization of the means of pro- 
duction even is only a means. What we struggle for is not 
the beauty of Socialistic principles, but the greatest possible 
welfare of all. Everything must be subordinated to this 
final goal even the Socialistic principles. The recognition 
that these principles are the best means to attain the final 
goal makes us Socialists. But even the Socialistic principles 
of social economics will have to be modified and restricted 
in respect to time, manner and extent of their practicability, 
if we some day arrive at the conclusion, that their radical 
introduction would not yet lead or not lead at all to the 
greatest possible welfare of all. Society is of higher import- 
ance to us. than anv of its forms/' 



38 

These quotations will suffice to show how far modern So- 
cialism is from the bugaboo of respectable bourgeois phil- 
istines and of the philistine of the revolutionary an- 
archistic phrase. State Socialism was inaugurated by the 
iron and blood chancellor of Germany, the astute Prince Bis- 
marck, in direct opposition and as a kind of an antidote 
against the "Virus of Social Democracy." It was intended 
as a means to gain the laboring class for the military and 
police state by bribing it, by granting certain beneficiary in- 
stitutions. State Socialism proved to be a flat failure, while 
Socialism is gaining more and more ground in all civilized? 
countries. 

Enrico Ferri says: "The unconquerable force of Social 
Democracy, the secret of its life energy, consists in the fact 
that Socialism, like the hero Anthaeus, constantly touches the 
earth, i. e., the real things and actual life. Socialism draws 
its unconquerable powers from the material and spiritual 
needs of actual life. The forceful teachings of Marx, that re- 
placed the hazy, platonic and subjective idealism of other 
political parties and Utopian Socialism (and anarchism. Ke- 
mark of the author) gives us a direction and aim, and makes 
it possible for us to remain on the soil of reality/' 

Modern Socialism is critical and constructive. Utopian or 
anarchistic Socialism may fight the windmills of state So- 
cialism to the glee of the individualistic philistine of the 
middle class and the heart's delight of all the Sancho-Panchos 
of the revolutionary phrase. So-called philosophical and un- 
philosophical anarchists may indulge as much as they please 
in NOT believing in God and devil, NOT voting, NOT or- 
ganizing, NOT recognizing any social institutions, NOT 
doing anything particular except occasionally dropping an 
explosive at the wrong time, the wrong place and injuring 
the wrong parties. They may pass their time in missionary 
propaganda consisting in a diarrhea of words and constipa- 
tion of ideas. They may dream about a fooPs paradise with 
plenty of enjoyment and fun, but no law, no state, no church, 
no family, no social obligations, where, however, everything 
is free, including lunch and love, and everybody may do as 
he wishes. Socialism will accomplish its mission in spite of 
all that, by daring and doing the right thing at the right 
time and in the proper way. 



88 



VII. THE BLONDE BEAST, THE MAN WITH THE 
HOE AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF DESPAIR. 

Rationalistic modern Socialism is based, not exclusively on 
certain economic theories and maxims, as some narrow-minded 
"Socialists pure and simple" think and would fain make 
others believe, but on the broad foundation of modern science 
and thought. The economic theories peculiar to modern 
Socialism are derived from the application of the 
results of the achievements of modern knowledge 
and philosophy to the field of social economics. The 
trouble with the "Socialists pure and simple" is in the ex- 
treme limitations of their mental horizon. They happen to 
know, or rather imagine that they have mastered Marxian 
economics, while modern science and philosophy remains to 
them a sealed letter. That is why they get irritated whenever 
and wherever they meet in the socialistic press an article con- 
taining something else than the everlasting parrot-like repeti- 
tions of pseudo socialistic commonplaces and shibboleths, 
Every attempt to present to the attention of the readers of 
socialistic publications, glimpses of the radiant world of 
science and philosophy, leading up to socialistic ideas and 
ideals-an all their world-redeeming significance, appears to 
the simple-minded and superstitious, simon-pure Socialists, 
as an attack on somebody or something, as a heresy and 
heterodoxy of some kind. To such people the religion of 
science is the religion of ignorance, and vice versa, ignorance 
is their religion and science. 

But what have these remarks to do with the theme of this 
chapter, with the blonde beast, the man with the hoe and the 
philosophy of despair? Nothing; except that they serve 
to show the utter helplessness of the simon-pure Socialist 
when confronted with problems of deeper and broader sig- 
nificance than "surplus value" and iron laws of "supply and 
demand," problems without the solution of which an actual 
knowledge even of these economic theories is impossible. A 
simon-pure Socialist is sure that he is in possession of the 
truth, of the whole truth and nothing but the truth, that all 
who do not exactly agree with him in his dogmatic faith are 



40 

either fools or knaves, or both at the same time. He is happy 
in his belief. Ask him, however, what and why he thinks 
one way or another about the philosophy of Nietsche or Tol- 
stoi and you will hear him call them names instead of bringing 
forth arguments tending to show the same materialistic con- 
ception of history he pretends to represent in the capacity of 
an orthodox Marxist. 

We will in this chapter not mention again the orthodox 
Marxists, fearing that we be accused of attacking them, which 
is not our intention; we will limit ourselves to the considera- 
tion of the two great German and Russian individualistic or 
anarchistic thinkers from the socialistic point of vie*-. 
Nietsche, philosopher of an epoch of blood and iron in the 
German history, and Tolstoi, the representative of the 
thought of the Russian era of Czarism, are as unlike each 
other as are the respective races, culture and civilization 
to which they belong. Two things are, however, common to 
them. The philosophy of Neitsehe, the idealizer of brute 
force, leads to the same blind alley of despair in the future 
fate of humanity ,to utter pessimism, as the philosophy of Tol- 
stoi, the preacher of non-resistance to evil. Both Nietsche and 
Tolstoi declare for the supremacy of the individual over the 
race and despise social institutions as tending to the deterio- 
ration of the individual ; both are anarchists in their trend of 
thought. That some anarchists, do not see in Metsche one of 
their apostles, a man who dared to reduce the anarchistic 
philosophy to its outmost logical conclusion, the apotheosis 
of the brute force in man, of the blonde beast, goes only to 
show that there are so-called philosophical anarchists just as 
narrow and simple minded as some of our friends, the Social- 
ists pure and simple. 

The historical conditions created the landed gentry or 
junker caste in Germany, an arrogant, ignorant and brutal 
class of semi-feudal and semi-capitalistic stamp. This class 
represents the type of physical health and perfection of the 
Caucasian branch of the animal styled by learned men homo 
sapiens. The blonde beast is endowed by nature with 
gigantic appetite and absence of any moral restraint; 
it is ready and willing to devour all and every- 
thing in sight and out of sight. It glories in its 
physical force and has no conception whatever of the spiritual, 
mental or moral part of human nature except as a means to 



41 

its chief and only aim, the satisfaction of its desires. All 
those who do not happen to belong to the Junker class 

are not aristocratic overmen, or blonde beasts, but com- 
mon undermen, (or rather underdogs), a lower race, whose 
business it is to feel happy and dignified by subordination 

to a higher one. The German Junker, as overman and blonde 
beast, is the first born, the beloved son of God and Nature, 

the fittest to survive. All other mortals are expected to obey 
when the blonde beast gives orders. The common undermen 
must slave all their lives in order to allow the overman to en- 
joy life and multiply. 

This is the law of God and Nature, according to the phi- 
losophy of Xietsche, with one slight modification. The phi- 
losopher of the blonde beast broke the cast line and substi- 
tuted the purely individual qualifications of a blonde beast for 
the accident of birth. He was liberal enough to admit that 
there were blonde beasts outside of the Junker caste and that 
some Junkers may accidentally be under-men. 

But enough of that nude brute Junker anarchism of war 
and strife. Let us turn to the more sympathetic, although just 
as pathologic, anarchism of peace and passive submission to 
evil, the philosophy of Count Leo Tolstoi. If the triumphant 
but stupid blonde beast arouses our just indignation and 
hatred, the Eussian Mushik, the genuine man with the hoe, 
deserves our pity and compassion, our sympathy and moral 
support. Count Leo Tolstoi is the philosopher of the Eus- 
sian man with the hoe, just in the same sense as Xietsche of 
the German Junker. It does not require much mental exer- 
tion to understand the philosophy of the blonde beast, its 
origin and psychology. But it is quite a task to unravel the 
mystery of the soul -life of the man with the hoe. We 
westerners are all more or less blonde beasts in our daily life, 
but we have no key in our mind to the Psychology of the Eus- 
sian mushik, who is so far from us in every respect. Imagine 
a human being born and reared in a primitive rural com- 
munity in entire dependence of the uncertainties of nature 
and whims and fancies of an awkward, antediluvial, cruel and 
wasteful police-state and state-church. Nature and social 
conditions both work in the direction of creating deep dis- 
satisfaction and recognition of the uselessness of all 
individual efforts to find the source of the evil, its causes and 
remedies against it. The Russian peasant, on account of his 



42 

dense ignorance, is not able to correct the irregularities of 
nature by artificial irrigation and fertilization of the soil. 
He is brought up in deep, slavish reverence for all authority, 
state and church. He silently, like a Eoman gladiator, dies of 
starvation and submits without grumbling to all the extor- 
tions in blood and money of the Czar's government. 

The man with the hoe is not a beast, but a poor, suffering, 
thinking human being. He cannot fail to see that there is 
evil, and much of it, in the world. The powers confronting 
him are the state and its handmaid, the church. Is it not 
natural that the Kussian jumps at the conclusion that the 
state is intrinsically, essentially an evil, the work of the anti- 
Christ? The conclusion that the church is an evil is, how- 
ever, modified by the intense religious instincts of the Slavic 
race. The Kussian peasant can create for himself, and as a 
matter of fact does create for himself, another better religion, 
than that presented by the official state church in the shape of 
numerous semi-rationalistic 'sects. He, however, does not 
know of any government but that of the Czar. Hence his 
religious, unconscious anarchism. Ages of submission and 
eslavement to the dominant classes on one side and a healthy 
idealism and touching faith in the ultimate victory of light 
and truth over darkness and falsehood inherent in the soul 
of the man with the hoe, are the sources of the obviously ab- 
surd maxims of non-resistance to evil. The Eussian Mushik 
is a truth-seeker by nature and inclination, but he gropes in 
the dense darkness of ignorance and superstition. 

Count Leo Tolstoi is only the spokesman of the plaim Eus- 
sian peasant. He does not believe in science, because it has 
not so far benefitted the man with the hoe ; he denies art for 
the same reason: he fights the institutional church, but finds 
himself in accord with the original teachings of the 
genuine religion of the man with the hoe, of Jesus of 
Nazareth; he denies all kinds of government, because 
it is the very personification of evil in his native land 
and far from perfection in other countries. The 
immense physical powers in the command of the Eus- 
sian ruling classes in the shape of a blindly-obedient, 
excellently-drilled army, crushing all opposition at its very 
inception, is the explanation of his non-resistance to evil. 
The blonde beast philosophy of Xietsche leaves no hope for 
the under-man, the plain people. The-man-with-the-hoe 



philosophy of Tolstoi preaches submission to the blonde 
Least. There is perfect harmony between Nietsche and Tol- 
stoi, in spite of the immense distance 4 dividing them as men 

and thinkers. 



•II 



VIII. RELIGIOUS AND SECULAR SOCIALISM. 

Religion is a philosophy of life based on intuition, on sub- 
jective evidences of our inner consciousness and conscience; 
a philosophy of life in which emotion and imagination pre- 
vail over reason. Religion, may be considered as com- 
posed of two principal disciplines. One of these 
disciplines is the ontological and presents some theory 
of the non ego, the not ourselves, the outward world 
at large, its origin, existence and future and the mutual re- 
lation between this world at large and men. The other dis- 
cipline is ethical or moral. It embraces some theory about 
social institutions, and contains rules and regulations of hu- 
man conduct corresponding to this theory. The first dis- 
cipline of religion — the ontological or cosmological — is at 
present supplanted by scientific philosophy based on an end- 
less array of, facts, observations and experiments — the monis- 
tic philosophy — in which neither emotion nor imagination 
play any conspicious part. The monistic philosophy is gaining 
more and more ground among scientists and thinkers of all 
shades of religion and thought, and all religious cosmogenies 
are classed with myths, as products of the imagination of bar- 
baric or semi-barbaric tribes. 

The second discipline of religion, its ethical part, is still 
of great vital importance as a social power, modifying and 
regulating human inter-relations and consociations for better 
or for worse, according to conditions. Science has not suc- 
ceeded so far in supplanting entirely the subjective intu- 
itional, emotional and imaginative elements of religion by 
results of objective reasoning and impartial observation and 
investigation. The so-called humanitarian sciences, the 
sciences concerning the past, present and future of the hu- 
man race, as history and sociology will for obvious reasons 
be the last of all natural sciences to be freed from subjec- 
tivity and deductive methods of reasoning. Scientific 
utilitarianism, as preached by Jeremiah Bentham and John 
Stuart Mill, and Meliorism propounded by George Eliot, are 
attempts not crowned with singular success. It does not ap- 
peal to human nature. 

It is therefore clear that religion may be of 2reat assist- 



ance to secular Socialism by arousing the human passion for 
righteousness, by appealing to race instincts and noble emo- 
tions, by directing the imagination to a grand vista of future 

human bliss and happiness, bt heroic deeds,, of gelf-sacrili •<• 

and martyrdom, of fame and glory, of immortality. It is in 
this sense thai the greatest agnostic and scientist of the ]>a>t 
century, Huxley, said : 

"I can conceive the existence of a church in which, week 
by week, services should be devoted, not to the iteration of 
abstract propositions in theology, but to the setting before 
men's minds of an ideal of true, just and pure living. 

A place in which those who are weary of the burden of dail 
cares should find a. moment's rest in the contemplation of 
the higher life, which is possible for all, though attained by so 
few. 

A place in which the man of strife and of business should 
have time to think how small, after all. are the rewards he 
covets compared with peace and charity/ 5 

Socialism of today is sorely in need of such a church with 
a. great religious prophet at its head. 

There is, however, a vast distinction to be made between 
such an ideal and idealistic religious movement as conceived 
by Huxley and the institutional churches of today. 

Against "Churehianity" we must be warned for another 
reason than its hollowness and soullessness ; its petrification 
and false pretense : its fostering of prejudices, superstition 
and narrow sectarian exelusiveness ; its intolerance and 
bigotry: its tendency to side with the powerful and strong 
and preach slavish virtues to the "humble and lowly" pro- 
letarian : its blasphemous attempts to sanctify the crying in- 
justices of the social institutions of their time and country. 
This reason is the policy of the institutional churches to take 
hold of irresistible popular movements in order to keep them 
in check and control them in the interest of the ruling classes. 
Such an attempt to avert the Socialistic movement into chan- 
nels desired by the institutional church is represented by the 
so-called Christian-Socialistic party of Germany, the So- 
cialist-Catholic party and others. Church Socialism in 
Europe is the worst enemy of secular, political Socialism, 
especially in Germany and Austria. All kinds of small po- 
litical tricksters, Jew-baiters and demagogues of the worst 
kind find refuge in the so-called Christian-Socialist parties, 



46 

and turn the term Socialism into a by-word and reproach. 
This is the reason why Socialism in Europe is outspokenly 
anti-churchian, and, so far as church and religion are identi- 
cal, anti-religious. 

There is besides this a historical foundation for the an- 
tagonism between the church and the proletarian class in the 
old country. This foundation is the traditional attitude of 
the institutional church toward all attempts of the so-called 
lower classes of society to better their condition. The church 
in Europe was from time immemorial the hand-maid of the 
state, that means the servile tool of the ruling classes. Xot 
only the Catholic church, but even the most advanced Pro- 
testant churches, were inimical to popular revolutions. Even 
the great German religious reformer, Martin Luther, thun- 
dered anathemas at the peasants engaged in riots against their 
oppressors — the landlord. 

The American proletarians may reproach the institutional 
church of the United States with staunchly supporting negro 
slavery in the south (and that in the name of the Saviour!) 
and with showing great indifference to THE social problem 
of the age, the struggle of wage slaves against economic de- 
pendence, social subjection and actual political bondage. 
American Socialists are therefore justified in their distrust of 
the attempts of some churchmen to use Socialism to such an 
extent as to cover all kinds of opinions and absence of opinions 
on social and economic problems, to emasculate Socialism to 
such a degree as to make it acceptable to- muddle-headed 
"non-partisan partisans" of silver-plated, back-number refor- 
mers like W. J. Bryan. To the preachers of such "blissful 
social unions*' we say: "We fear the Greeks even when they 
offer presents/* 

Socialists are, however, by no means prejudiced against 
come every sincere and honest attempt to spiritualize the 
sincere and honest religious Socialism as such. Thev wel- 
dull masses of the people and present to them hi grT ideals 
and noble precepts of conduct ; every sincere and honest en- 
deavor to clarify the visions of the unthinking crowd, ob- 
structed by the intellectual rubbish with which it is lavishly 
supplied by the subservient pulpit and press; every sincere 
and honest attempt toward broadening and diffusing Social- 
ism itself into a modern world-redeeming gospel of the human 
race. 



47 



IX. RATIONALISTIC SOCIALISM. 

Who made whom? Did the gods create men or men their 
gods? The prevalent view that Socialism has nothing to do 
with this and similar problems is far from being correct. In- 
deed, Socialism, as a philosophy of life, cannot afford to ig- 
nore any problems of life, cannot do it with impunity. Ger- 
man Socialists tried, out of considerations of tactics, to 
dodge religious issues entirely. The appearance of a self- 
styled "Christian" Socialistic party (a thoroughly disreput- 
able and unprincipled conglomeration of medieval race 
hatred, religious bigotry and gentry arrogance) was made 
possible by the systematic silence observed by the bona-fide 
Socialists on religious matters. Had the German Social Dem- 
ocrats from the start declared for free thought as the only 
logical understructure of their philosophy of life, had they 
unequivocally taken the stand that Socialism is founded on 
the solid rock of human reason and science, had they fairly 
and squarely propounded agnosticism as the only safe and 
honest attitude towards the Unknowable, much confusion of 
ideas as to that for which Socialism actually stands, would 
have been avoided and eliminated. 

We do not intend to say that religious views necessarily 
hinder a man or woman from sympathizing with Socialistic 
ideas or even from being an active worker for the cause of 
Socialism. What we do maintain is that Socialism, being a 
purely rationalistic movement, a child of modern conditions 
and modern thought, ought to be emancipated once for all 
from the hazy mysticism and unhealthy hypnotic influence 
of neo-Christianity as expounded by some native preachers 
without congregations, who have heard a voice calling them to 
spiritualize Socialism. Socialism is not necessarily antago- 
nistic to religion as a moral force. It is rather sorely in need 
of such a force in order to shake up the mental and moral 
torpor and inertia -of the masses and classes. But consist- 
ency with one's own fundamental principles and a regard 
for truth deserve the first consideration of every honest So- 
cialist. Neo-Christianity has just as little right to be called 
Socialism as church-Christianity — old and new alike; as far 
as it contains any rudiments of a social-economic doctrine, it 
is simply individualism or anarchism. No amount of so- 



48 

called higher criticism and exegetic mental or phrase- 
ological jugglery can do away with this plain fact. The man 
who succeeded best in imbibing and expounding the teach- 
ings of the prophet of Nazareth, Count Leo Tolstoi, preaches 
religious anarchism* The American disciples of the 
great Russian artist and moralist do not openly declare 
for religious anarchism because they either lack the clearness 
of vision of their teacher or do not possess his moral courage 
of convictions. At any rate, the sooner the neo-Christians will 
honestly show their real color the better for clear-cut ration- 
alistic Socialism. 

Let us, however, return to our problem, Who made whom? 
Natural sciences lead to the conclusion thai the God idea 
appeared as an attempt of men to account for and explain 
the phenomena of nature in a way and manner corresponding 
to their mental capacity. The less self-conscious and critical 
the mind of men was, the more subjective, the more human- 
like were their conceptions of natural forces. For a savage 
the field, the forest, mountain and lake — the whole of nature 
— are the abode of friendly or inimical human-like beings 
or Gods. This is the origin of polytheism.- The recognition 
of the unity of all natural forces by the higher Semitic races 
resulted in the one-God idea, or monotheism. The personal 
deity of the advanced races retained, however, even to our 
days, its human-like character. The great thinker, 
Spinoza, renounced the idea of a personal deity and declared 
all the world as divine. This all-God idea, or pantheism, is, 
a somewhat refined negation of the God idea in general. 
The greatest modern scientists have come to the conclu- 
sion that neither the existence nor the non-existence of a per- 
sonal deity can be demonstrated by proofs of our senses. 
They therefore declared all speculations in favor or against 
God ideas to be beyond the scope of the human mind and con- 
sequently to be futile and purposeless. 

This honest and candid admission of the limitation of hu- 
man mind, called agnosticism, is the proper point of view 
for all rational Socialists to maintain. The real material 
world around and in us ought to be and is our field of ac- 
tivity. The arduous task of making the real material world 
a habitable place for the highest possible type of humanity 
is great enough to occupy all our attention. Agnosticism is 
entirely in accord and harmony with evolutionary or monistic 



philosophy arid consequently with Socialistic doctrines. Neo- 
Christianity, or Christ's Christianity as it is styled by Count 
Leo Tolstoi and his followers, is not of this world. It does 

not care about the human mortal frame and its physical well- 
being. It preaches humility, forbearance, passive submission 
to evil, meekness — all virtues of slavery and bondage. It 

wants peace at any price and advocates charity instead of so- 
cial justice. It indulges in a morbid idealization of physical 
wretchedness and suffering as an atonement for sins in the 
eyes of a cruel human-like deity. It puts a premium on 
spiritual poverty and exults in the suppression of all natural 
human instincts of love for kith and kin in favor of a mystical, 
slavish submission to the supposed will of a man-made, su- 
pernatural, heavenly being. Even in its alleged cardinal 
principle — love to humanity in general — it goes beyond the 
limits of the normal human mind in advocath j love to those 
who are our foes. Christianity is thoroughly pessimistic. It 
does not believe in the inherent force and nobility of human 
nature, but always insists on its weakness, frailty and wick- 
edness. 

That such a philosophy has nothing in common with the 
thoroughly optimistic, healthy and vigorous Socialistic 
movement of our day, must be obvious to any unprejudiced 
mind. In fact, Christianity cannot be harmonized with the 
monistic philosophy. Christianity represents an entirely dif- 
ferent cycle of ideas and conceptions than modern monistic 
philosophy and must of necessity be diametrically opposed 
to modern Socialism, which is nothing else but the applica- 
tion of monism or evolution to society as an organization 
of men. To combine the terms Christianity and Socialism is 
just as sensible as to combine the terms Anarchism and So- 
cialism. One excludes the other as its antithesis, its negation. 
Christian-Socialism is a contradiction in terms, a misnomer, 
as much so as Anarchistic-Socialism would be. 

Socialism, as we stated before, is sorely in need of a moral 
or religious force. But such a religious force must be and 
actually is gradually being developed in a thoroughly ration- 
alistic idealism, full of vigor and faith in the inherent no- 
bility and great future of the human race here on our mother 
earth ; in a self-sacrificing passion for social-economic justice 
in human society; in a tender sympathy with all downtrodden 
and dispossessed children of toil: in a hatred of all evil and 



50 

wrong in human interrelations; in a fierce contempt of all 
false pretense, shams, hypocrisy and conventional lies per- 
meating our present mercantile civilization ; in an arduous de- 
sire for a nobler, higher, more truly human culture. Such a 
religion of a divine humanity, moving onward and onward on 
the highroad of physical and spiritual perfection, is the re- 
ligion of Socialism. 



51 



X. THE ETHICAL MOVEMENT AS VIEWED BY THE 

SOCIALIST. 

At the time of the earthly career of Jesus of Nazareth, 
two rival schools of Learning flourished in Judea. Rabbi 

Sharay stood at the head of one of these schools and Rabbi 
Hillel of the other. A heathen once came to Shamy and 
asked him: "Tell me, teacher, the essence of your science 
while 1 am standing on one leg/' The rabbi chased away 
the infidel in anger and disgust. The inquisitive heathen 
then went to Rabbi Hillel and repeated his request to him. 
"Gladly, my son/' replied the sage, "the essence of our teach- 
ing is — love your neighbor as yourself — all the rest is only a 
commentary." Do not get scared, dear readers! T am not 
going to preach a sermon. 

I have related this beautiful story only as a striking illus- 
tration of laconic brevity. 

Xow — if some modern infidel would ask the writer of these 
lines to tell him the essential difference between the philos- 
ophy of life of the past and future while he was standing on 
one leg — he w r ould get the following reply: "The old philos- 
ophy of life may be expressed in the sentence : I do believe in 
spite of its absurdity (credo quia absurdum est) ; while the 
new philosophy of life may be expressed in the sentence: 
I exist because I think (cogito ergo sum)." Faith was the 
watchword of the past, reason shall be the guide of the 
future. To doubt was a crime in the good olden time, 
to criticise and test the truth of all phenomena of 
life shall be the moral duty of the future.. Tra- 
dition and authority constituted the bulwark of the 
past, knowledge shall be the cornerstone of the future. 
Man was considered by our forefathers a mere toy in the 
hands of capricious deities. Science emancipated man from 
the phantoms of his own imagination and showed him the 
way to be master of his own destinies. 

This radical change going on in the minds of men could 
not fail to affect in its turn the domain of ethics. 

"Thou shalt do this, or abstain from that, because the 
.Deity has ordered it. Woe to those who transgress this com- 
mand. But those who obey shall be rewarded." Such is in a 
nutshell the view of the past on practical ethics. To the ad- 



52 

vanced thinker of our sceptical age, however, such motives are 
puerile. HUMAN HAPPINESS ON EARTH IS THE 
PURPOSE AND AIM OF MODERN ETHICS. Indeed 
modern ethics are unthinkable without the knowledge of the 
laws governing the relations between men and as members of 
society. 

Says Herbert Spencer: "From the sociological point of 
view ethics becomes nothing else than a definite account of 
the forms of conduct that are fitted to the associated state, 
in such wise, that the lives of each and all may be the greatest 
possible, alike in length and breadth." This definition em- 
phasizes two points : the utilitarian foundation of ethics and 
its essentially social nature. Professor John Dewey of Chi- 
cago goes so far as to affirm that morality is nothing else but 
sociability. 

The theory of ethics is two-sided, psychological and social. 
The psychological side has to do with the individual, the so- 
cial side with his relations to his fellow-men. Biologically 
speaking the starting-point of morals or morality is simulta- 
neous with the appearance of intelligence; that is, the faculty 
of reasoning in conjunction with some knowledge of nature, 
however rude and imperfect. Ultimate moral forces and mo- 
tives are nothing more nor less than social intelligence, the 
power of observing and comprehending social situations and 
powers. Professor DaGarmo of Pennsylvania calls the moral 
type of men, the social type. According to his definition, the 
moral type is distinguished by its readiness to participate in 
group activity for the common good. 

The emancipation of ethics from the tenets of old creeds 
and its reconstruction on a purely rational foundation was a 
great step forward on the road of human progress. 

Rational ethics consists of two disciplines : the science or 
theory of conduct, and the art or practice of conduct. The 
science of ethics leads even such strictly individualistic think- 
ers as Herbert Spencer to the recognition of the purely social 
character of ethics. More unbiased authorities, as we have 
partly seen, identify ethics with social virtues in general. In 
other words the theory of ethics by the force of logic leads to 
Socialism in its broadest sense just as inevitably as the study 
of natural sciences lead to hygiene and prophylactic medicine. 
Still closer is the relation between the art of conduct and 
Socialism. As it is impossible for the human body to be and 



remain healthy in an anti-hygienic environment, practical 
ethics or moral health is an impossibility in a state of society 

whose institutions are luiilt on an essentially immoral founda- 
tion and impregnated with the miasma of the animal strug- 
gle for existence. In such a society ethics of neccessity must 
he a snare and delusion, a hypocritical cant and a fruitless 

endeavor. Socialism alone will make right conduct possible 
by creating social institutions and conditions in the highest 
degree favorable to the development of the human mind and 
character. 

Those who look upon Socialism as an artificial scheme, 
concocted by a few speculative economists, with the exclusive 
purpose of improving the material condition of a certain class 
— however large in numbers and worthy of sympathy — have 
too narrow a view of the movement, its depth, scope and 
breadth. Socialism is the inevitable result of the organic 
growth and evolution of human mind. It is an historical 
necessity, as were cannibalism, slavery, serfdom and the pre- 
sent social system (or utter absence of any rational system). 
Kational beings like men are bound by nature to manage their 
affairs on strictly rational principles. Socialism means noth- 
ing else but the reconstruction and management of all social 
affairs according to the principles of science, reason and 
ethics. The economic side of the Socialistic doctrine, al- 
though at present the most prominent, is not by any means 
all there is in it. Socialism is in no way merely a class move- 
ment, although at present for obvious reasons it is identified 
with the special interests of the industrial proletariat. So- 
cialism is essentially a humanitarian movement — broad as 
humanity and deep as the mystery of life. Socialism aims at 
the abolition of all class distinctions among men, and has 
in view all interests of men, moral, mental, aesthetical, as well 
as economic. The ideals of Socialism are not limited by 
any artificial lines or classifications. They are the ideals of 
humanity, the ideals of right living, of bodily health, of in- 
tellectual development, of a happy, harmonious, beautiful 
life on earth, of a life worth living. Socialism teaches people 
to consider themselves and others not only as individuals, hut 
as integral parts of the human race, as heirs of the trea- 
sures left by generations gone by, and responsible predeces- 
sors of future generations. 

Can there he a conception more beautiful, true and elevat- 



54 

ing? How small and insignificant our fate as individuals 
appears in comparison with the fate of humanity, an infi- 
nitesimal social part of which we constitute! But once we 
recognize as paramount the interests of the race to which we 
belong, our significance as workers, however humble and weak, 
in the interests of the race grows and widens, and life acquires 
a new, richer, broader and deeper meaning.. 

When a new idea is born into the world, it meets with a cold 
reception. The parents of new ideas are stamped as fools, 
charlatans, and cranks. They are subjected to social ostrac- 
ism, persecuted, and sometimes deprived of life. Neverthe- 
less its inherent power and harmony make a new idea self- 
sustaining. It thrives, grows and blossoms into beauty in 
spite of all unfavorable circumstances and influences. Just 
these inherent qualities gradually win for it more and more 
friends, even in the headquarters of its most bitter enemies — 
among the "upper ten thousand," the so-called "respectable 
people." This stage however, is fraught with the utmost 
danger for young ideas. In order to be acceptable to re- 
spectable people, the new idea has to undergo a certain pro- 
cess of remodelling agreeable to the tastes of the new con- 
verts. It is thrown into the straight- jacket of conventional- 
ity, trimmed, polished, painted and perfumed like a faded 
beauty. All its originality and reality is carefully eliminated 
and cast off. Deprived of its simple but genuine shape, it 
loses its original vigor, not unlike Sampson, after his hair 
was cut off by his Philistine wife. And what then ? 

Every one of us has had a chance to observe curious petri- 
factions, representing in their outward appearance some plant 
or animal. How did these curious phenomena take place in 
the workshop of nature? The organic substance of the ani- 
mal or plant, particle by particle, was displaced by mineral 
substance. The outward appearance of the fossil testifies 
silently, but eloquently, that in times gone by the curious 
body really lived. 

The once tender, highly complex structure and mysterious 
molecular activity, or if you choose to call it so, the "soul/* 
has vanished never to return again, while the stone is left. 
Phenomena of that kind are not limited to nature alone. 
We meet them in the domain of human psychology in the 
shape of fossilized ideas. Do not petrified dogmas replace the 



66 

living soul of once young and buoyant religious creeds? 

Tho living Gods have turned into so many dead idols. 
Allow me now to ask a few pertinent questions. Is not 

the rationalistic ethical movement confronted by the danger 
of becoming a sharer in the^ad fate of other creeds, founded 

on the one solid rock of human emotion and fancy? 

Shall we not he alarmed by the marked tendency of the 
ethical movement to grow "respectable," to suit the tastes of 
the refined few? Ts not the ethical movement showing a 
tendency to degenerate into a rationalistic sect with dogmatic 
morality as its confession of faith ? 

Do not many ethical culturists look upon the apostle of in- 
dividualism, Herbert Spencer, as their Messiah, and his 
Principles of Ethics as their Bihle? 

According to their views, there are no social, no economic, 
even no political problems to solve. The only thing necessary 
is to be moral in private life. All the rest will somehow and 
sometime regulate itself automatically. A very optimistic 
theory indeed — personal morality as a panacea against all 
evils. Let all people be personally moral, and the world will 
turn into a paradise and in the most peaceful manner. There 
will be no more bloody revolutions, no artificial legislation, 
no complex social institutions, even no expensive governments 
necessary. How puerile, but how "conservative," and there- 
fore "respectable !" The personal morality theory seems to 
be indeed a splendid foundation for the shaky philosophical 
palace of "laissez faire." 

Ask some of the extreme individualists in the movement: 
"What are ethical societies for?" and you will hear some such 
reply as this: "Ethical societies are a kind of asylums for 
unchurched people, a kind of ethical dormitories." 

The writer was a close observer of the convention of the 
American Ethical Union, held at Milwaukf in 1898. All the 
lights of the movement, Dr. F. Adler, New York; W. L. 
Sheldon, St. Louis; P. Chubb, New York; Wm. M. Salter, 
Chicago ; S. B. Weston, Philadelphia ; Dr. John Elliott, New 
York, and others, took part in the exercises of the convention. 

The oratorical feast extended to various topics. "The Mes- 
sage of the Ethical Movement to the Religious Nature of 
Man," "Its Relation to Emerson and to Free Religion," "Its 
Relation to the Liberal Movement in America," "Its Relation 
to Orthodox Religion." "Club work among Men and Boys in 



56 

tlie Tenement House Districts/ 3 "Self-culture methods among 
Working Poepky ' "The Contribution of Ethical Societies to 
Philanthropy/' "The Mission of the Ethical movement," 
were the subjects treated more or less exhaustively by the 
speakers of the convention. The confession of faith in the 
movement was distinctly stated by the various representatives 
and delegates. Dr. Felix Adler, the founder of the movement, 
claimed for it the endeavor to create a demand for social re- 
forms by educating the children in ethical schools. He ad- 
vised employers to look upon their business as a social func- 
tion, a sacred duty imposed upon them by society. The em- 
ployer should consider himself the priest of the industrial 
church. 

A very euphonious phrase ! Was it dense ignorance of the 
actual social and economical conditions of our time or de- 
liberate begging of the question ? 

Does not the learned doctor know the beautiful flower of 
our industrial anarchy, called competition ? Does he not 
know that one swallow cannot make a summer ? 

Does he not know that it is not the free will or whim of the 
employers, but the iron laws of the present industrial system, 
which crush the industrial proletariat? 

An employer must treat his employes in the same way as 
his fellow employers in his branch of production or trade 
treat theirs, or else go out of business. He is a slave of the 
capitalist system, just as much as the common laborer, al- 
though a somewhat favored slave. He is the turnkey of the 
industrial prison. 

Still more peculiar was the assertion that it is necessary 
to create a demand for social reforms by the aid of schools 
connected with ethical societies. Deep dissatisfaction with 
the existing social and economical conditions is one of the 
most prominent features of our time. There is a nervous 
restlessness even among the representatives of our shoddy 
aristocracy. The whole civilized world is literally craving 
for economic and social reforms. But now our learned doctor 
steps forward and proclaims: "Patience ! you naked, starving, 
freezing, persecuted and exploited children of toil and mis- 
fortune. Wait till we shall create a demand for social re- 
forms/' Humanity has to play the part of the camel, to be 
driven through the narrow eye of the needle, represented by 
the only school existing in connection with the Xew York 



Ethical Society, in order to make social reforms possible. 
Poor humanity ! 
Thai this line of argument was 1 1 < > t an accidental slip of 

the tongue is obvious to me tor the following reason. A few 
years ago I happened to listen to a lecture delivered by an- 
other light of the movement, Mr. Mangasarian. Touching 
upon the labor problem, he implored employers to give their 
wage slaves more Leisure. And for what purpose? For the 
study of classics. "What a consolation it would he for the 
scavengers or eolleetors of garbage, during the fulfillment 
of their laborious and unpleasant duties to reeite passages of 
Homer, Virgil and Cicero!" And Mr. Mangasarian did not 
even smile when lie uttered these ahsurdities before a numer- 
ous and supposedly enlightened audience in Chicago. 

But another assertion by Dr. Adler is still more astounding. 
He claimed that many social reformers undermine morality 
by criticizing the bourgeois morality. They should limit them- 
selves to the criticism of the narrow-mindedness of the ap- 
plication of the principles of morality by the middle class, 
hut respect the principles themselves. ISTow is that not simply 
delicious ? We should like to have those reformers who un- 
dermine morality called by their names. As far as we are 
informed, the foundation of all reformatory movements has 
always been a deep ethical current passing through society. 
An immoral reformer is a contradiction in terms, a nothing. 
One could well expect that the founder and leader of a new 
movement would be better informed on common social sub- 
jects or at least be more guarded in the expression of his 
opinions. 

Dr. John Elliot was another delegate of the convention, 
who proved his ignorance of Socialism by claiming that it 
is a purely materialistic movement. He said that the So- 
cialists were mistaken in expecting a millenium by satisfying 
the material needs of man, in ignoring 1 'i spiritual interests. 
Xothing is further from the truth than this assertion. So- 
cialism as stated before, is only apparently an economic 
movement. But its moving power, as well as its final aims 
and purposes, are purely ethical, and therefore spiritual par 
excellence. Be it far from us Socialists to condemn any line 
of honest endeavor to elevate manhood and womanhood to a 
higher level only because the people engaged in it do not 
agree with our views on social activity. The convention in 



58 

the main produced a very favorable impression. The dele- 
gates were all enlightened, enthusiastic and broad-minded 
people with pronouncedly humanitarian inclinations. The 
more the pity that they fail to see the fallacy of so-called in- 
dividual morality. 

What individual morality means is simply a tendency to 
avoid unnecessary friction among members of society. So- 
ciety is to a certain extent a complex mechanism, whose con- 
stituent parts are its members. The less perfect the social 
organization, the more obvious is the necessity of avoiding 
friction, and vice versa, the more perfect the social organism, 
the less apparent is the necessity of avoiding friction. The 
analogy between social and mechanical friction is complete. 
The poorer the construction of a machine, the more lubricat- 
ing oil it needs. Friction is a property of matter and can- 
not be eliminated entirely, but may be reduced to a minimum 
by a skillful application of mechanical principles. In the 
Socialistic state of society there will be very little use for the 
lubricating oil of personal morality. But socialism is impos- 
sible without social ethics, just as complete social ethics is 
impossible in our present individualistic stage of culture. 

The advanced science of sociology will furnish the 
practical statesmen of the future with sufficient data to 
invent new methods of organization and co-operation, 
just as mechanics enables the constructors m of machines 
to make them more and more perfect. Social dyna- 
mics are, however, infinitely more complex than me- 
chanics. "Mind is the highest quality of matter, as society 
is the highest product of evolution of matter," says Lester 
Ward, the greatest sociologist in the United States. Society 
therefore depends on the mind. Ethics is an inherent part 
of the human mind. Not only the lowest human races, but 
even animals have some conceptions about right and wrong. 
Ideas about ethics evolve along with society, and Socialism — 
as the highest stage of social evolution — will make the reali- 
zation of high moral ideals possible. 

Becognizing the utility of the ethical movement in our 
time of sordid selfishness, we however think that much of 
its energy will be wasted as long as it fails to grasp the inter- 
dependence between the conduct of men and their social en- 
vironment. 

Another stumbling-block of ethical societies, is their — per- 



59 

haps unintentional — social exclusiveness.. The people — the 

toiling class — are not attracted by these societies to any ap- 
preciable extent. The ethical society of the people Will be the 
child of a brighter future, when education, enlightenment, 
and culture will not be monopolized by a few, but accessible 
to all alike. The ethical society of the people will be the 
Socialistic state of society. 



60 



XL IS SOCIALISM MATERIALISTIC? 

"Socialism is grossly materialistic. Tt eliminates from hu- 
man nature everything human and preaches the brutal gospel 
of the stomach. " Socialists are after the fleshpots of Egypt, 
but protest against Egyptian labor. They are the vandals 
of modern times. Religion, the fine arts, aesthetics, ethics 
and idealism, are according to their views nothing else but 
the sickly outgrowth of a transitory stage of society. Let 
everybody have enough to eat and to drink, provide everybody 
with homesteads, and other means of subsistence, and hu- 
manity's salvation, the millennium of highest bliss possible 
on earth, will be an accomplished fact.* Such is the alleged 
ultimatum of Socialism. Such are the harangues against 
Socialism met with in the general press, on the pulpit and 
political platform. 

It is hard to tell how many of these accusations against 
Socialism originate from the ignorance and prejudice of the 
opponents of our doctrine and how much of it is conscious 
slander, deliberate calumny, of a hated, feared, new and 
growing power. In both cases, however, the result is the 
same. The indolent crowd lends a ready ear to all that is 
brought forth against the new teaching. And many an other- 
wise well informed and fairminded man demonstrates a 
marked inability to grasp the real meaning and import of 
these accusations and takes them on credit. Indeed it is so 
easy to take somebody's assertion for granted even if need 
be with a grain of salt ! And life is too short to investigate 
matters and arrive at conclusions independently of what Tom, 
Dick and Harry present as evidence! Is it to be 
wondered at, that the mere sound "Socialism/ 5 seems to have 
an almost shocking effect on the ear of many cultured men 
and women of our enlightened age? You may pre- 
sent sub rosa the most radical Socialistic doctrine 
and an enlightened audience will listen spell-bound to 
your expositions and arguments, and will show the deepest 
interest and sympathy. But as soon as you allow the sound 
"Socialism" to slip from your lips the spell will be at once 
broken and the majority of your attentive and sympathetic 
listerners will stare at you and feel, or pretend to feel scanda- 
lized. Obviously not the doctrine produced that effect, but 



6i 

the prejudices aroused and nourished by accusations of the 
kind before mentioned. 
It is our privilege and duty to disprove the truth of the 

imputation that Socialism is materialistic, in any except the 
philosophical, or rather historic sense of the term. 

What is materialism? There is a materialistic philosophy 
of the universe. There is a materialistic philosophy of hu- 
man life, and finally there is a materialistic philosophy of 
the history of humankind. Of which of these materialisms i< 
Socialism guilty? 

The materialistic philosophy of the universe is now ac- 
cepted as the only scientific view of the suhject. Its essence 
is briefly stated as follows. Matter is conceived as composed 
of small physical particles,' which are moved in obedience 
to merely physical principles, and, being themselves without 
sensations, may produce sensations and thought by particular 
forms of their combinations. Sensations do not exist inde- 
pendent of matter, and have to be considered only as the 
effects of ordinary material changes. 

The opposite school of philosophy maintains however, that 
we know the world only through our perceptions and conse- 
quently cannot know how things are related to each other, 
outside our perceptions. The extreme idealists do not sup- 
pose that there is anything — by and for itself — per se 
without its corresponding to our conceptions of 
things. For instance, if we perceive a tree we 
may be sure, that, — except in relation to the eye, into 
which it sends its rays, — the tree has no existence. The tree 
is only a phenomenon of our sense of vision and not a thing in 
itself.. This idealistic conception of the world around us 
is obviously metaphysical and consequently unscientific. 
Even if we should admit for the sake of argument, that the 
tree, as a. thing in itself, does not exist — -still for all practical 
purposes the tree exists for us and all arguing to the contrary 
is idle hairsplitting. 

Obviously the materialistic philosophy of the universe 
has very little, if any, bearing at all on social problems. So- 
ciology has for its subject not so much the world at large: 
with its innumerable atoms, stars, ether and boundless spaces, 
as the species homo sapiens inhabiting our minute planet. 
And Socialism is but the practical application of Sociological 
principles to actual life, the art of living in societv. The 



62 

materialistic conception of the world has even very little, if 
any at all bearings on the philosophy of human life, as a 
basis of conduct. I may for instance be convinced that noth- 
ing exists but our conception of things in our consciousness, 
i. e., be an extremely idealistic ontologist, and still be the 
most unscrupulous exploiter of the weak and poor, the most 
cruel and profligate husband, in fact a monster of depravity. 
And inversely — I may be certain, that nothing exists but 
matter and be the personification of altruism, the best mem- 
ber of society, the embodiment of the highest ideal of hu- 
manity. Idealism, and materialism as the foundations of 
the philosophy of human life, are entirely independent of 
ontological idealism and materialism. The terms have an 
entirely different meaning in these two different cases. 

Before, however, we try to investigate how far, if at all, 
Socialism preaches or is conducive to a materialistic philoso- 
phy of life, and consequently unethical conduct, it seems 
expedient to find out whether Socialism is guilty of ex- 
pounding a materialistic philosophy of history. Is this a 
just accusation against Socialism? In answer to that 
question Socialism must step forward before the tribunal 
of its judges and proclaim "Mea culpa ! mea maxima culpa !" 
Yes, Socialism did it through the agency of its foremost and 
most brillant champion — Karl Marx. Let us now candidly 
explain how and why it was done. The Socialism of the 
Utopian period tried to propagate their ideas by appealing 
to the higher sentiments of love, sympathy and compassion 
with the persecuted, weak and down trodden, they attempted 
to win the aid of the current religious ideas and recognized 
ethical principles— but all in vain. 

The social and economic development and structure of so- 
ciety was not in the least influenced by this generous appeal 
to the higher human emotions. The economic and social 
institutions were, and remained imbued with grossly materi- 
alistic spirit (in the most common sense of the word) and the 
principle homo homini lupus reigned supreme after, just as 
before the activity of the Utopian Socialists started. The so- 
called classical school of national economy sanctioned by its 
apparent superior wisdom and scientific dignity the exploi- 
tation of the many by the few, the masses by the classes, 
the weak by the strong, the honest by the unscrupulous. 
The new science totally eliminated from human nature every- 



68 

thing human and preached the gospel of the stomach in all 

its egotistic brutality. The economists considered it quite 
appropriate and normal, that the valiant few should take pos- 
session of the valuable flesh-pots of Egypt, of production and 
distribution, while the non valiant masses should bear all 
the burden of the Egyptian slave labor and feed on the morsel 
of crumbs falling from the overladen table of their em- 
ployers and exploiters. The classical economists ignored 
entirely religion, the fine arts, aesthetics, ethics as irrelevant 
to the material well being of nations. They were deeply 
concerned about the wealth of nations, balance of trade, etc., 
but did not care a particle about the fate of those who created 
this wealth and balance of trade. Man was to them an ab- 
stract being endowed with the insatiable desire to accumulate 
wealth for the nation, and this accumulation was considered 
as the most desirable of all human pursuits. The new 
science advocated the wildest individualism; declared com- 
petition the life of trade and rejected interference in eco- 
nomic affairs on behalf of the materially weaker as injurious 
to the wealth of nations — their fetish. 

That the economic structure of society is subjected to 
laws of evolution similar to those ruling the entire organic 
world was only dimly recognized by the leading economists, 
whose climax of wisdom concentrated itself in the purely 
negative maxim — let alone (lesser fair, lesser passer). The 
historical perspective was totally absent in their treatises on 
economic problems. The historical science properly did not 
want to know anything about national economic factors in its 
turn. The only factors it "did recognize were petty court 
intrigues, wars, d3 r nastic rivalries, religious fanaticism and 
racial antagonism. The narrowness and one sidedness of 
economics ignoring history and history ignoring economics, 
is just as glaring a phenomenon as the lamentable divorce 
between national economy and Sociology. All these three* 
sciences are necessarily supplementary to each other. No 
rational historian can get along without the knowledge of 
economics and Sociology. And the same is true in relation to 
the Sociologist and economist respecting history. 

Karl Marx was the first critical Socialist, He was the 
first to meet the classical economists, the defenders of the 
existing social and economic structure with all its cannibal- 
like brutality, on their own ground and to fight them with 



64 

their own weapon. It was and is still an heroic strife, the 
battle is still undecided as far as actual conditions are con- 
cerned^ but the theoretical, scientific victory is undoubtedly 
on the side of Karl Marx and his school. Marx recognized 
the futility of Utopian phantasma and sentimental appeals 
from the part of a lamb to the wolf. He talked to the wolves 
in their own dialect and showed them sharper and stronger 
claws and teeth of logic and knowledge than they ever pos- 
sessed. He considered the world, or rather the historical 
life of nations and the problems of individual existence, from 
the standpoint of physiological evolution according to natural 
laws. 

Certain modes of economic activity correspond to cer- 
tain social stages of development with certain political, 
religious, moral, literary, philosophical and artistic fea- 
tures. With the change of these modes of economic 
life are closely connected changes in all other ac- 
tivities of a nation. That theory he applied to the modern 
conflict between capital and labor and arrived at generallv 
known conclusions. Only a superficial student of Marx' 
and Engels' works will not notice that below the cool, de- 
liberate, almost mathematically precise, reasoning of the 
scientist there is hidden a warm human breast, a heart aglow 
(with love for the human race and burning with righteous in- 
dignation at the injustice and beastly exploitation of the w T eak 
by the strong. 

This love for the human race and higher ethical ideals 
are the real keynotes to all cf Marx's and Engel's 
scientific researches and political activity. The same 
is true in respect to Lassalle and other Socialist leaders of 
note. That they stepped forward mainly and apparently ex- 
clusively as economists was not their fault. This was "the 
only way to reach their purpose in a time when all considera- 
tions of justice and right are subjected to economic problems 
of gain, loss, profit, rent, interest. Not the Socialists created 
this grossly materialistic spirit of our tinies. The Socialists 
want to abolish profit, rent, interest, this unholy trinity of 
our economic system, in the name of the higher interests 
of the race. But in order to combat that unholy trinity suc- 
cessfully they have had to do it as economists. 

It is true, that Socialism demands before all, economic jus- 
tice, social rights actually equal for all human beings, with- 



65 

out any distinction of race, sex or material wealth; it wants 
a true democracy. Bui I defy anybody to prove to us that 

Socialism considers the inauguration of this minimum of 
material justice and equality as its final goal and highest 
aim and purpose. Quite the reverse of it is true. Socialism 
recognizes that only after economic and social justice is in- 
augurated can the higher development of the race begin. 
And is it not a recognized fact that only those 
nations and classes reach the highest point in science, 
philosophy, fine arts, which enjoy a certain degree of 
economic security and independence? Is it not true that 
material want and the feeling of insecurity of daily bread 
for one's self and family tend to produce a stifling effect on 
human ambition and lead inevitably to the atrophy of mental 
and spiritual interests? Is not material need brutalizing 
and degrading? 

We leave it to the kind reader to decide whom deserve 
more the imputations of gross materialism. 

On one side w r e have the individualists, who preach 
the zoological bellium omnium contra omnes, the war 
of all against all, and non-interference of society, 
who advocate the chaotic play of social or rather 
anti-social forces, who put might before right and even affirm 
that might is right, who consider selfishness as the best guide 
of social conduct and sole basis of economic activity, who put 
a premium on low r cunning, reckless speculation and un- 
scrupulous exploitation of men by men, who wash their hands 
in human blood and indirectly feed on human flesh and mar- 
row. 

On the other hand we see the raceists, or Socialists., who 
consider the interests (all the interests — the spiritual a* 
well as the material) — of humanity as a whole, the interests 
of the masses as paramount, who look upon every man as a 
unit of society (in the broadest and deepest sense of the 
word), who advocate harmony and brotherhood between those 
units of society, who proclaim the solidarity of the interests 
of all men, who substitute co-operation for competition, 
who preach altruism as the wisest and safest basis of social 
conduct, who maintain that right is superior to might, who 
by a rational reconstruction of society want to do away with 
every incentive of selfishness, who despise low cunning, who 
consider speculation with the products of human labor as 



66 

criminal, who are always to be found in the tents of those per- 
ishing for the great cause of human love and reason. 

It is necessary to argue now as to what may or must be 
the bearing of the Socialistic doctrine on the philosophy of 
life and consequently on human conduct? Who is more 
likely to devote his activity and energy to materalistic pur- 
suits — the gain of wealth, for its own sake and by any means, 
the egotistic enjoyment of this ill-gained wealth in glut- 
tony, drunkenness and other dissipations — the individualists 
or the Socialists ? Which of these two types of our present age 
is more likely to devote his life to the disinterested service 
in the cause of the human race, to acquirement of knowledge, 
to lead a life of high thinking and pure esthetic enjoyment? 
Which of these two types is more likely to develop into a high 
type of humanity ? 

Far from being exclusively an economic theory of society 
Socialism is preeminently an ethical movement. Mr. L. 
Duncan, the lecturer of the Milwaukee Ethical Society, said 
in one of his brilliant addresses concerning Socialism: 

"But probably the most characteristic expression of the so- 
cial movement, and the one which is exercising the deepest 
and widest influence in its methods and institutions, is So- 
cialism. Socialism, whatever else one may think or say about 
it, is aflame with the humanitarian passion. It is painfully 
aware of the economic injustice and social destitution and 
their concomitant miseries, which have obtained under the 
prevailing system of industry and forms of government, and 
aims at the reconstruction of society upon lines which it 
believes will insure to every man equal rights and equal op- 
portunities with every other, to a happy and harmonious 
development of all his powers that will make life worth liv- 
ing. It conditions the development of such a life upon the 
equality of political and economic rights, charges the pre- 
vailing inequalities and social miseries to the private owner- 
ship of the means of production and distribution and looks 
for the remedy in the abolition of such private ownership, and 
substitution of collective ownership and control. The motive 
which animates that movement and the aims and purposes 
to which it addresses itself, are humanitarian, the desire to 
increase human happiness and well being, to make better men 
and women, and among the aims and purposes which Social- 
ism hopes to realize through its methods, and chief among 



67 

them, is the development of a higher type of manhood and 
womanhood, noi simply a better fed and better dressed ani- 
mal, bul an intellectually enlightened and morally strong 
human being, able and willing to live a good life and to con- 
tribute hie full share towards making the good life possible 
to others. The fact that the methods of Socialism are so 
exclusively political and economic arises from the theory 
which pervades its philosophy, namely, that the good life is 
practically impossible under wrong social conditions and that 
to make possible the most desirable type of moral manhood, 
the social conditions and institutions most favorahle to the 
right development of the human mind and character must 
first be created. This, Socialism, by it's methods, promises 
to do/' 

Such is the opinion of a thoughtful outsider on our move- 
ment. There is so far no written philosophy of the Social- 
istic movement and every new thought and new point of view 
advanced by candid observers and students of society is 
highly welcome. We, therefore need to deepen and broaden 
the scope of Socialistic thought and sentiment and build up 
our system of philosophy with care and deliberation as good 
social architects. 



68 



XIL ECONOMIC AND SOCIOLOGICAL ASPECTS 
OF CAPITALISM. 

Human society is subjected to the same laws of evolution 
and devolution, development and decay, organization and dis- 
organization, as the rest of the organic world. All institu- 
tions of human society are of a transitory character, they 
develop, grow and succeed each other according to certain 
laws. Cannibalism was succeeded by slavery, slavery by 
serfdom, serfdom by free individual production, individual 
production by socialized manufacture, and at last by machine 
production, the prevalent mode of production in our own time. 

Socialism is the advance agent of a higher stage of moral 
evolution, of economic freedom based on socialized produc-. 
tion of economic democracy, as the true and only safe founda- 
tion of political democracy. Socialism stands on the firm 
ground of monistic philosophy and regards society from a 
purely scientific point of view. It recognizes that there was a 
time when slavery was a progressive institution in comparison 
with cannibalism: that serfdom was the legitimate heir of 
slavery ; when the last outlived its utility; that individual 
production in its primitive stage had to be succeeded by some 
more economic mode of socialized production, and that the 
modern machine production is a perfectly natural successor of 
the previous stage of economic social activity. There is not 
one clear-sighted, or, if you please, critical socialist, who 
would advocate the return to individual production. All the 
enumerated types or stages of social life have two aspects — a 
purely economic and a broader, sociological one. Slavery, for 
instance, may be looked upon as an economic phenomenom on 
one hand and as a social institution on the other. The so- 
called classical school of economists — Adam Smith, Eicardo 
and others — refused to see in social life anything but its econo- 
mic functions. . Society was to them a somewhat loose con- 
glomeration of abstracts economic units, bent on creating na- 
tional wealth. They recognized only one all-absorbing social 
force— greed. This metaphysical and Utopian view was re- 
jected by the founders of critical Socialism — Eodbertus Jage- 
trow and Marx. Eecognizing the economic factor as the fun- 
damental principle of human history, they, however, pointed 
out that, as the Sabbath is for men and not men for the Sab- 



69 

hath, wealth is only a means to human happiness, not a pur- 
poee in itself. According to the spirit of their teachings, the 

interests of the producers of wealth are paramount, while 
wealth itself, its production or preservation, are matters of 
secondary consideration. 

Critical Socialism rejected the idolatry of the fetish of 
the material wealth of nations, this modern Moloch on the 
golden altar of which the middle class or vulgar economists 
were and are ready to sacrifice the creators of this ver}d8?ealth. 
Critical Socialism raised its voice for the human rights of the 
laboring class — the proletariat — by pointing out that society 
is not a mere conglomeration of abstract economic units, but 
a consociation of living human beings ; that the laws governing 
human society are far more complex than the vulgar econo- 
mists supposed. In other terms, modern Socialism insisted 
on the recognition of the broader, sociological aspect of dif- 
ferent stages of social life. Capitalistic production from the 
purely economic point of view represents the highest stage ever 
attained, if we take in consideration the ratio between the 
amount of human energy expended and the results attained in 
respect to the commodities produced. The middle class econo- 
mists indulge in eulogies of this system of production. So- 
cialists study and demonstrate the results of this mode of pro- 
duction on the producers themselves. They prove that capi- 
talist production, being the most perfect system of exploitation 
of men by men, is practically the most refined 'species of 
cannibalism in disguise. 

We can easily imagine socialized machine production in a 
state of society where society at large will own the means of 
production, where the raw material and tools of production 
(including land) will be public property. Socialism is not op- 
posing the economic, but the social element of capitalism, 
because this social element, the private ownership of the means 
of production and distribution, turn capitalism into cannibal- 
ism, into a curse to humanity. Substitute collective owner 
shin of the means of production and distribution, and so- 
cialized machine production will turn into a blessing to hu- 
manity. 

Though capitalism is the most perfect system of exploita- 
tion of men by men, it is by no means the only mode of ex- 
ploitation of men by men, in the annals of history. Exploita- 
tion existed long before and may exist in one form or another 



70 

long after capitalistic exploitation shall be a thing of the past. 
Capitalism, historically considered, is only a phase of the mer- 
cantile or profit system, of subservience of the human per- 
sonality to the things created for satisfying his needs. Aside 
from slavery, serfdom and wage bondage, exploitation is the 
essential element of any state of society where commodities 
are produced, not for use, but for profit. In an ideal state 
of society, like that advocated by Socialism, there will be no 
place for profit. Society will own and operate all its means 
of production with the single object in view of satisfying in 
the most rational way the needs of its individual members. 

Capitalism is one of the many phases of social life through 
which humanity had to pass on its triumphant advance to 
higher culture and civilization. There was a time when capi- 
talism was progressive and useful, being instrumental in 
training the proletariat in the noble art of socialized pro- 
duction. The day, however, is fast approaching when the 
proletariat will be ready to take possession of all the econo- 
mic functions of society and operate them in the interests 
of society at large and eliminate the capitalistic class as an 
entirely useless and superfluous element. 



XIII. CAPITALISM AND LIBERTY; FREEDOM AND 

SOCIALISM. 

CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS AND HACK CONSCIOUSNESS. 

The capitalistic mode of production leads inevitably to the 
socialization of industries. The gigantic scale of application 
in our time of the principle of combination of individual for- 
tunes for the purpose of the exploitation of organized and un- 
organized labor, in the shape of stock companies and trusts, 
is a phenomenon of far-reaching importance and of deep sig- 
nificance as a transitory stage of socialization. The individ- 
ualistic principle of competition is gradually superseded by 
its opposite. The purpose of stock companies and trusts is 
to eliminate entirely the element of competition and sub- 
stitute co-operation and combined action. 

The socialization of economic activities under the capi- 
talistic regime, however, is accomplished in the interests of 
one class and to the detriment of the race in general. The 
capitalistic class takes advantage of the applied principles of 
socialization in its own interest. Capitalists are one-sided 
Socialists. They strenuously oppose any attempt to apply the 
principle of socialization in the interests of the people at 
large and the working class in particular. Out of mere sel- 
fishness they preach, for popular use, the gospel of individual- 
ism and hypocritically erect altars to the fetish of liberty, 
viz. the competition of the economically weak among them- 
selves. Indeed the more competition there is among the un- 
organized and economically weak, the easier it will be for the 
socialized and economically strong to exploit the former. 
This is obvious enough. The strange thing, however, is that 
many superficial thinkers try to deduct socialistic principles 
from the anarchistic principle of liberty. They somehow 
do not distinguish between two entirely different terms — 
freedom and libertv; and this leads them into an abyss of 
confusion of thought. 

Liberty is an individualistic ideal, while freedom is a truly 
Socialistic ideal. Socialists wish to abolish capitalistic liberty 
and inaugurate freedom, by the means of an all-sided and com- 
plete socialization of economic functions in the interests of 
the whole race. 



72 

What is liberty? In the first instance, it is a mere 
negation — the absence of open coercion. To build a system 
of thought on the basis of a mere negative term is a striking 
absurdity. Suppose someone should attempt to build a sys- 
tem of public hygiene, on the principle of the absence of 
physical pain. What could be said in favor of such a sys- 
tem? The worshipers at the shrine of the capitalistic and an- 
archistic fetish, liberty, forget the old truth — that the Sabbath 
is for men, and not men for the Sabbath. They are never 
tired of repeating the platitude that men are born for liberty. 
They forget that liberty is — as it necessarily must be — the 
deadly foe of freedom. Liberty means the rule of the physi- 
cally, and economically strong, and the absence of freedom 
for the rest. Liberty is incompatible with real equality, 
while freedom is unthinkable without it. Liberty is a prin- 
ciple of the sub-human world, while freedom is a purely hu- 
man ideal. A tiger is at liberty to kill any animal weaker 
than himself. A man, however, can be free only in case he 
lives in a perfectly organized community, where in return 
for certain functions performed by him in the interests of 
society, he is assured all the necessities of life and happiness. 



Another term derived by Socialists from the capitalistic 
dictionary is the so-called class consciousness. 

If liberty is a fetish of the somewhat muddle-headed ne- 
ophytes of Socialism, class consciousness is the idol of nar- 
row-minded, dogmatic, pseudo-scientific Socialists of the 
orthodox type. Dogmatism, orthodoxy and narrow-minded- 
ness, however, are dangerous symptoms of spiritual atrophy 
and degeneration. There has been and is too much of this 
among the old school Socialists. 

It will be well to analyze the terms class consciousness, and 
the class struggle, which are so commonplace in the social- 
istic vocabulary. We have knowledge of the struggle be- 
tween slave and master, between the privileged classes 
of the feudal period and the middle class, and we witness 
now with our own eyes the combat between the middle class 
and the proletariat. Historically speaking, the class struggle 
has been and is a mighty dynamic power for good or evil, 
according to conditions. At certain periods of history, one or 



another class represents the interests of the race in general, 
and the fate of that, class is closely linked with the general 

interests of the race. So the middle class not long ago repre- % 
sented the advance guard of humanity in its struggle against 
feudalism, which had outlived its utility. At present, how- 
ever, this same class is not only conservative, but rather re- 
actionary, and the role of the advanced guard of humanity 
belongs by right to the proletariat. There has been hardly any 
class in the history of humanity more conscious or rather more 
self-conscious than the middle class. In fact, class conscious- 
ness is a distinctly middle class virtue or vice, just as we 
choose to view it. As a matter of tactics, the proletariat must 
fight the middle class with its own weapons and possess class 
consciousness in order to be successful in its battle against a 
class-conscious enemy. 

Let us not, however, make a virtue out of necessity. 

Class interests in the end are only a little better than in- 
dividual interests as a motive for conscious evolutionary ac- 
tivity. If the struggle of the middle class against feudalism 
had been only a struggle in the exclusive interests of that class, 
no earnest thinker, poet or public-spirited man would have felt 
inspired to take part in the struggle. It was the interest of 
all humanity — rightly or wrongly conceived — which impart- 
ed the inspiration to noble deeds and sacrifices on the part 
of the great actors of the French revolution. The middle 
class, after its selfish class interests were secured, became 
satisfied and used the new conditions to the advantage of its 
own class interests. 

Shall the proletariat be trained in the same narrow and 
selfish channels of thought and sentiment? Shall the pro- 
letariat repeat the same sad and sordid comedy of achieving 
only class interests under the guise of euphonious but empty 
phrases of fraternity (of the Cain variety), liberty (tiger 
liberty) and equality (after death), connected by the middle 
class with the dawn of its victory? Are not the class con- 
sciousness and the class struggle so emphasized by some 
fanatical ante-diluvian Socialists, exceedingly narrow and 
near-sighted? There must be a struggle between the pro- 
letariat and the middle class, but this struggle is of an emi- 
nently deeper and broader significance than any other class 
struggle in the history of humanity. It is only a class strug- 
gle, if viewed from the surface, but as a matter of fact it is 



74 

a struggle of all the human race against social institutions 
which have outlived their utility, a struggle of all the hu- 
,man race for the entire reconstruction of our present social 
fabric on principles of reason and justice, a struggle of a 
truly human philosophy of life against a conception of life 
peculiar to the beasts of prey. 

Socialism is the movement not of a single class — however 
large and worthy of sympathy — but the movement of all the 
toilers, all producers, all the people working for a living, all 
those who honestly and without reserve have at heart the inter- 
ests of the laborer in the broadest sense of that term. 

Let us therefore preach race consciousness as a higher ideal 
than of class consciousness. 

The struggle between classes in history — if analyzed closely 
and candidly — is in the end a struggle between old and new 
forms of life. Let the dead bury the dead, and the living 
take their places with a sense of the continuity of the life and 
activity of the human race, of which we all form infinitesimal 
links. 



75 



XIV. CATACLYSM OR EVOLUTION. 

Timea are changing and we change with them. It cannot 
be otherwise. life iteelf is constant change, perpetual trans- 
formation, everlasting development. That life on earth, or, 
rather, its forms and manifestations, are not uniform and 
Constant, but subjected to changes and transformations of 
the most pronounced character was noticed by the thinkers 
of all ages. Observers of nature could not fail to discover 
that species of plants and animals existed at some periods and 
were replaced by quite different types at other periods of the 
existence of our globe. The human mind could not, however, 
be satisfied with the mere statement of these facts. The re- 
ligious philosophers explained the changing forms of life 
on earth as the results of the activities of a personal, human- 
like, supernatural being, as results of consecutive creations. 
The earth was looked upon by them as a kind of divine experi- 
mental station, where the deity indulged in the sport of 
creating, destroying and creating anew different species of 
plants and animals according to whim and fancy. Poetical 
as this assumption may appear, it did not satisfy the analy- 
tical mind of modern scientists. The great French natural- 
ist, Cuvier, for instance, advanced the semi-scientific theory 
of cataclysms. According to this theory, the globe is sub- 
jected to periodical violent perturbations, changing its entire 
surface and burying under its ruins the existing types of 
life. These cataclysms are followed by a long period of crea- 
tive rest, during which new types of plants and animals re- 
appear and multiply. The theory of cataclysms fails to ex- 
plain the causes of the violent perturbations, and presupposes 
the possibility of creation of living organisms out of mere 
debris of a dilapidated world. In some respects the Cuvier 
theory was less satisfactory than the previous theological 
one, with its supernatural deue ex machina of a creator of 
something out of nothing. 

Darwin (the grandfather of Charles Darwin), Goethe, 
Lamark, Jofroi St. Iller, Charles Darwin and other modern 
naturalists established firmly the theory of evolution, of 
gradual development of life on earth from the most simple 
and primitive forms to its highest type, the human race. 

Mankind is but a part of animal life on earth. Obviously 



76 

the philosophy of life as advanced by the Darwinian school 
must find its application in social economics. The last of all 
sciences, however, to be studied on evolutionary principles 
appears to be sociology, the science of human society. This 
curious fact finds its explanation in the comparative youth 
of the just named science and its great complexity. 

The honor of the first attempt to apply evolutionary me- 
thods to the history of men unmistakably belongs to the 
great founder of the materialistic conception of history, Karl 
Marx. Without the conception of human society as a product 
of evolution, critical Socialism would be an impossibility, 
As a matter of fact, critical Socialism is nothing else but 
a rational system of philosophy of human social life in the 
light of the theory of evolution. The so-called materialistic- 
conception of history is to be called more properly the evolu- 
tionary conception of history. Indeed, to explain all changes 
in the social- economic life as the results of gradual develop- 
ment of modes of production and distrubution from the sim- 
plest and therefore most stable forms to the most complex 
and consequently least stable means to apply evolutionary 
methods to social-economic sciences. That the evolutionary 
or materialistic conception of human history ought to lead 
to such an eminently evolutionary movement as we witness 
in modern Socialism goes without saying. 

Historians, economists and sociologists of the old schools 
could well afford to adhere either to the theological theories of 
the interference of a supernatural being in human affairs or 
adopt Cuvier's theory of cataclysms or revolutions, according 
to their resj^ective personal predilections. They might con- 
sistently recognize so-called revolutions, violent social up- 
heavals, as the efficient causes of different types of social- 
economic life and activity. Critical Socialism, however, 
must necessarily look upon social-economic cataclysms, as the 
great French revolution, not as causes of a change in social- 
economic forms of life and activity, but as their inevitable 
consequences. Ee volts and revolutions in social life are what 
thunder and lightning are to atmospheric electricity. Social 
forces if checked and hampered by irrational and anachro- 
nistic institutions turn destructive, but destruction is not by 
any means the essential feature of social evolution. 

Social forces intelligently and rationally managed are con- 



77 

structive. Cataclysms in Bocial life <>r revolutions are no1 
necessarily progressive. 

In view of these facts, it is rather humiliating to see and 

hear Socialism identified with obsolete Jacobinic cataclysmic 
aspirations, as it is frequently the case in our time of general 
confusion of causes and effects in social life. We do not 
mean to maintain that there will be no social cataclysms in 
the future, or that Socialism will necessarily be inaugurated 
peacefully. Bui critical Socialism in its educational crusade 
will teach the people to see coming social events and use its 
clear vision for the purpose of foreseeing and avoiding, as far 
as possible, social cataclysms. The knowledge of social forces 
will enable humanity to control and direct these forces in 
channels of the greatest constructive usefulness. Socialistic 
or rather pseudo socialistic jingoism is just as contemptible 
as any other indulgence in irrational misuse of language. 



XV. COMMUNISM* AND COLLECTIVISM. 

La propriete c'est le vole — property is theft — according ta 
radical thinkers like Proudhon. Private property is the very 
foundation of our culture and civilization, according to con- 
servative thinkers of all ages. Communism is the highest 
ideal attainable, according to the first, and the very incarna- 
tion of evil, according to the last. There is, however, a third 
view of the subject of property, and this is represented by so- 
called collectivists. It is of vital importance for each and 
every Socialist to gain a clear conception of all these 
views and theories on private and common property. As in 
all cases, the best way of arriving at strictly scientific con- 
clusions is to go back to the first principles of natural sciences 
and use strictly naturalistic methods of reasoning. 

The first question suggesting itself is the origin of prop- 
erty. The conception of private property we meet in the ani- 
mal kingdom in a quite distinct form, especially among the 
beasts of prey. The motive of property in this case is the in- 
stinct of self-preservation and the means of its attainment 
and preservation — brute force. Might and right are identical 
for the "individualists" of the animal world. Common utili- 
zation of pastures by animals living in herds may serve as an 
illustration of the opposite type of use of property. The ele- 
ments of common use of property, resulting from the co-opera- 
tion of the members of an organized group of workers, we meet 
in studying the social life of bees. In that the foundation of 
property appears to be a higher principle than brute force, the 
principle of work. It is true that the community of a bee 
hive will attack any of its members not willing to contribute 
towards the common property, and try and keep away any 
intruder from outside by force and sting. But force and 
sting are in this instance only a means of self-defense, while 
the justification of the defense lays in accomplished work. 
Might is in this case only an adjunct to right, a means to en- 
force and maintain it. 

This element of work is of far-reaching importance. In 
the instance of the individualistic tiger — the mere act of kil- 
ling an animal weaker than himself can hardly be called 
work, from the economic point of view at least. The con- 
suming of grass on the pasture by herd animals requires 



7<> 

still less exertion on their part. In both caBes nature pro- 
vides the food in a condition ready for immediate consumption. 
It is quite different with the honey accumulated in a behive. 

The raw material out of which honey has to be formed must 
he collected by patient workers from many flowers, transferred 
to the beehive and transformed into new products of a certain 
shape, quality and quantity. It is a quite complicated opera- 
tion, demanding a great deal of exertion on the part of the co- 
operating bees. This exertion forms the ethical moment of 
property rights. 

Work means the overcoming of a resistance. The overcom- 
ing of a resistance may be accomplished only by an expendi- 
ture of bodily energy on the part of the worker, an expendi- 
ture of their very substance. The resulting wax and honey 
represent, partly, at least, the transformed bodily substance 
and energy of the co-operating bees. 

Turning our eyes to human society we find that only on the 
very first stages of civilization and in exclusively favorable 
conditions men could exist on what nature furnished them in 
the shape of fruits of the field and animals of the forest for 
food, in the shape of a cave as a shelter from the inclemency of 
the elements and seasons. The element of labor entered more 
and more extensively into the life of man as he advanced on 
the evolutionary ladder, shaped his ideas about possession of 
property and determined the form of property at the time. 
The mode of production, the method of applying labor to the 
products of nature, in order to produce commodities for con- 
sumption and use, determined the mode of use and consump- 
tion of these commodities — the system of property. When, 
for instance, a tribe of Indians killed a buffalo in a joint hunt- 
ing expedition the buffalo was considered the common prop- 
erty of the hunting party. On the other hand, in stages of 
culture when individual production prevailed, the form of 
property holding was individual. We cannot, therefore, decide 
for all times and conditions which form of property is the 
most just and rational, as our friends the Utopians do. 

Socialism objects to the present strictly individual form 
of property in general and the tools and materials of pro- 
duction in particular, not from any abstract and arbitrary 
point of view, not on sentimental grounds, but because the 
present system of property is in direct contradiction with the 



80 

present mode of production and distribution of commodities. 
The present system of production and distribution is co-opera- 
tive and becoming more and more socialized with every year, 
while the system of property holding and use remains in- 
dividualistic ; and is kept so artificially, in violation of all the 
laws of nature and society, reason and justice. This incongru- 
ity can not, ought not and will not exist much longer. The 
masses suffer under this incongruity materially, while the 
classes degenerate into useless parasites and drones of society. 

Socialism works in the direction of removing this incon- 
gruity and restoring equilibrium between production and con- 
sumption in the name of reason and justice. The socializa- 
tion of all the industries in the interest of society at large is 
demanded. This co-operative commonwealth does not mean 
necessarily communism, or consumption in common of the 
commodities produced in common. Utopians indulge iix 
dreams about soldier-like life in barrack-like phalansteries, 
where everything is in common. Modern Socialists take into 
consideration human nature with its pronounced individual- 
istic tastes and proclivities, with its yearnings towards the 
sanctuary of home and privacy of family life. It takes into 
consideration the fact that these individualistic tendencies are 
the natural outcome of the evolution of the human type. 

The evolution of the human individuality can and ought to 
be turned into channels where it would become an inexhausti- 
ble source of constructive and organizing power for social wel- 
fare. That humanity may in the distant future prefer com- 
munal life and consumption of commodities we do not feel 
justified to deny. But Modern Socialism is more 
inclined towards collectivism than communism of the 
Utopian pattern. Collectivism is favorable to the full de- 
velopment of the human individuality without encroachment 
upon the interests of other members of society. Under col- 
lectivism freedom, fraternity and equality may for the first 
time turn into a reality instead of an empty sound. Among 
these the term equality from the collectivist standpoint needs 
some elucidation. Opponents of Socialism love to 
insist that collectivism and communism are identical terms 
and must necessarily lead to the dead level of slavery. This 
assertion is by no means justified. Under collectivism the 
equality of chances for all the members of the community will 



81 

be assured, while there will be left the largest opportunities 
for the development and utilization of individual talents. 

Far from leading to a dead level of slavery, collectivism 
would make people really free to live the fullest, deepest and 
sublimes! life, a life worth living. 



82 



XVI. SOCIAL EVOLUTION" AND THE REFORMERS. 

Modern Socialism is a distinctly conscious evolutionary 
movement. It demands a radical reconstruction of the present 
mercantile and capitalistic system of society on entirely differ- 
ent planes. It demands that all industrial and economic 
functions of society should be managed by society in the in- 
terest of society as a whole. It considers the democratization 
of commerce, trade and industry as the only reliable founda- 
tion of political democracy and safe guaranty of true social 
equality. 

The co-operative commonwealth advocated by Socialism 
is thoroughly in accord with the results of modern philoso- 
phy — science and ethics. Social justice and the light of rea- 
son shall regulate the civic, economic and other inter-relations 
of the members of this commonwealth of the future. Blind 
chance and chaotic play of unrestricted and uncontrolled indi- 
vidual endeavor and action, characterize the present anarchic 
state of society and are favorable for the most brutal struggle 
for existence between man and man, man and woman, man and 
child in the field of industrial slavery, a struggle resulting in 
the survival of the most cunning, unscrupulous and heartless, 
in a boundless sea of human suffering and degradation, in 
crime, carnal and moral prostitution. 

In our present society the individual or class is allowed to 
exploit, nay, encouraged to prey upon, the mass of humanity. 
Socialism has raised the banner of the downtrodden, 
exploited and demoralized masses of humanity, the 
so-called lower classes. It champions the cause of 
the emancipation of these lower classes from the unbearable 
yoke of irrational and unjust social conditions. It has pro- 
claimed the identity of the interests of the individual with 
the interests of the race in general, and is, therefore, an inter- 
national, world-wide movement as far as general principles 
are involved. Socialism stands for the brotherly co-opera- 
tion of all the members of the human race for the purpose of 
exploiting the inexhaustible treasures of our common, benevo- 
lent mother — nature — for emulation instead of competition, 
for the survival of the best instead of the fittest, for the ele- 
vation instead of the degradation of the human type, for the 



83 

entire abolition of class distinctions, for the propaganda of 

race instead of class consciousness. 

Socialism dors not expect to change human nature by 
elevating the morality of single individuals born, reared, 
educated and compelled to live in a grossly immoral environ- 
ment, in a state of society inviting immorality by its very 
construction and putting a premium on immorality by hea- 
thenish success worship, as the conservative and revolutionary 
Utopian individualists expect. It proposes only to 
direct the instinct of self-preservation, so deeply rooted 
in human nature, into channels where the most potent social 
powers will, by the laws of social mechanics, turn, constructive 
instead of destructive, organizing instead of disorganizing, hu- 
manizing instead of bestializing. 

The most rational way to abolish an evil is to remove the 
incentive for committing it. Where there is no motive for ex- 
ploitation of one man by another there can be no exploitation. 
Socialism fortunately passed the Utopian stage in which the 
individualists still linger. It builds its magnificent edifice 
for the future of humanity not on the sand of personal mor- 
ality, but on the solid rock of knowledge of human nature and 
the laws of social and economic life. It does not believe in 
creating social conditions by legislative fiats. It maintains 
that only such laws are operative which sanctify existing so- 
cial and economic conditions, laws expressing deep-rooted con- 
victions of the broad masses of the people. 

As Rome could not be built in one day, the herculean task 
of emancipating the human race from its own irrationality 
and injustice to itself cannot be accomplished by a single 
stroke of the sword or pen. The masses of humanity must 
learn a great deal in order to understand their own interests 
and how to consciously and rationally modify economic and 
social conditions in acordance with these interests. The 
masses are born, reared and trained by the dominating and 
domineering classes in a slavish attitude of mind, in slavish 
virtues, which are the free man's vices. 

There are three ways to learn: By original thinking, by 
imitation and personal experience. The most noble of these 
three ways of learning, the original thinking, is done by a very 
f ew,while the masses of humanity live by the thoughts of other 
people, mostly of the past generations. The second method 
of learning is the easiest. Even apes and parrots can imitate. 



84 

Unfortunately, however, the higher classes represent a very 
poor paragon for imitation by their high living and low think- 
ing, by their arrogance, ignorance, and false pretense. (The 
morals of the slaveholder were never much higher than that of 
his slaves and vice versa.) The third way of learning is the 
hardest 'and most certain of all three. Personal experience, 
however, does not enlighten everybody. A slave may know 
how hard his lot is and yet bear his chains complacently as 
long as he is a slave in thought and feeling, that means as 
long as he recognizes the institution of slavery as something 
legitimate, as long as he objects to slavery only on personal 
grounds and aspires to be a slave driver or slave owner him- 
self and not a free man among equals. 

It is obvious that Socialism will be obliged to do much 
uphill educational work, and for a while limit its political 
activity to gradual measures, to so-called reforms, without, 
however, leaving out of mind for a single moment the final 
goal in view. This way Socialism, being a worldwide, con- 
scious, evolutionary movement, may at certain periods in 
certain countries be engaged in reformatory activity, without 
being inconsistent, without losing its conscious evolutionary 
character. 

If, however, Socialists may at times engage in reformatory 
work, the question arises: What should be their attitude to- 
ward reforms inaugurated or advocated by middle class par- 
ties? Middle class reforms may be divided into the 
following categories: 1. Eeforms in the exclusive 
interest of the middle class, but pretending to ben- 
efit the people at large, as, for instance, the protective 
tariff in the United States. 2. Eeforms having the appear- 
ance of radical measures, but destined only as a blind for vot- 
ing cattle into the hands of demagogues, as, for instance, the 
free silver movement. 3. Eeforms having in view to discred- 
it directly real radical reforms in the eyes of the unthinking 
multitude, as were the measures taken by the rulers of Borne 
during the agrarian agitation by the Gracchi brothers, in 
France by granting some demands by Blanqui, in Germany, 
during the state-Socialism period of Bismarckian policy; and 
(4) bona fide reformatory movements of shallow, sympto- 
matic, short-sighted ephemeral kind, as, for instance, single 
tax,* prohibition and such like. We do not need to waste 
words on the first three kinds of middle-class reforms. These 



85 

reforms have to be fought by Socialists with all the weapons 

within their reach and power as strictly inimical to the inter- 
ests of the toiling masses. 

Bui what shall be our attitude toward the honest, sincere 
fanatical blind leaders of the blind — like the single taxers, 

prohibitionists, anarchists and all the would-be reformers? 
All these people are Utopians to a larger or smaller degree. 
They do not realize the complexity and lawfulness of social 
life. They do not care to study human society as a result of 
historical evolution and social statics and mechanics; they 
blindly believe in the miracle-working power of paper legisla- 
tion. The worst of all is, however, that the middle-class re- 
formers never arrive at the conclusion that it is futile to 
attempt to introduce a measure, however, apparently salutary 
to the oppressed, which is out of joint with the whole system 
of the social fabric, that such a measure, even if introduced, 
would be either entirely inoperative or misused by the classes 
in power in their exclusive interest and to the detriment of the 
masses of the people. 

Xothing short of broad tolerance on our part toward the 
"blind leaders of the blind" will do. The grain of truth that 
is sometimes contained in their teachings will remain intact 
while the sands of mistaken fads and notions will be washed 
and carried away in the ocean of oblivion by the tide of time. 



86 



XVII. BLISSFUL SOCIALISM. 



Eev. W. D. P. Bliss is the leader of the Social Reform 
Union. Being weary of the strife of Socialists (in which, by 
the way, he played the part of an onlooker only) and the 
Socialism of strife, he decided to step forward with an olive 
branch, the "symbol of what shall be." This is, of course, very 
natural. The reverend gentleman is weary and wants peace. 
He does not believe in strife, but does believe in peace. He 
believes, however, in many other things. He believes "in one 
life, in all the people and in all the people in one life." The 
reverend gentleman is not only exceedingly broad in his faith, 
but somewhat oracular in its expression. In religious affairs, 
however, a little haziness of style is considered graceful and 
lofty. Indeed, W. I). P. Bliss is not a common mortal — he 
is a prophet, an apostle of a new Socialism, the Socialism of 
the twentieth century, the Socialism of Peace (with a big P.) 
"What will such a Socialism mean ?" asks the prophet, and re- 
plies himself: "It will mean all that is in man — sex, 
bodies, heads, souls, matter. What is matter? Never mind. 
It will mean mind. What is mind ? No matter !" In regard 
to transparency of style the sentences of the Pythian oracle 
are far superior to the style of the apostle of the Socialism of 
the twentieth century, but all great ideas have to be clothed 
in the language of poesy. In spite of ail the poetic license of 
the profession, or rather, confession, of faith of the founder 
of the Socialism of Peace, one thing is clear as "the glow of 
Homer's rolling sun" — namely, that it will mean a great deal 
more than the Anarchism of Peace as expounded and pro- 
pounded by Count Leo Tolstoi. Judge for yourself, dear 
reader. The Blissful Socialism of Peace will mean matter 
(and that means a great deal), no matter, mind, never mind 
and many other things and nothings, the enumeration of 
which we are compelled to omit for sheer lack of space. 

The most encouraging aspect of Blissful Socialism is, how- 
ever, that it will mean sex and for obvious reasons. Rev. W. 
D. P. Bliss is not only the prohpet of a new gospel, a new 
savior of humanity, but a great organizer. He found out 
that "people are weary" (again this characteristic expression 



87 

of the reverend gentleman's state of mind, this time general- 
ised; believing in "all the people in one life/ 3 he identifies 
himself with the people to whom he belongs) "of discussion, 
they want action/ 3 Therefore, he is starting "an organization 
that will eventually make parties unnecessary. Today reform 
needs not so much education as unity, the unity of the whole 
people/ 3 There is obviously nothing small about the founder 
of Blissful Socialism. He is opposed to parties, because a party 
stands for a part We must have an organization into which 
anyone — man or woman — may enter. It must respect ev- 
eryone's opinion, alike the millionaire's and the pauperis. It 
must, therefore, as an organization, have no opinion, NO 
PLATFORM, XO PRINCIPLES! But, secondly, having let 
everybody in, it must find out what all want. How will this 
bring in Socialism ? It will not bring in Socialism until the 
majority of the people want it, "and then it will/ 3 This idea 
of ushering in Socialism by uniting all men and women of 
the world in an organization without principles is so grand, 
so unique, so original and at the same time so delightfully 
simple that it would make Rev. W. D. P. Bliss immortal if 
he did not otherwise deserve it. Let us imagine "an organiza- 
tion to which everybody may belong and yet remain perfectly 
free to vote as he pleases. Those who think they can do the 
most good by working through one of the old po- 
litical parties may still do so, those who believe in 
a class-conscious party can go on with their efforts 
and party. It can bind no one; it can unite all, 
because brotherhood (among the millionaires and pau- 
pers) is more adhesive (not cohesive, mind you, but adhe- 
sive!) than strife." In respect to tolerance, broadness and 
liberality this organization leaves nothing to desire, since 
"anybody can belong to it, without committing himself to any 
economic view, without making any pledge to support or not 
to support any party/' 

Rev. W. D. P. does not believe in a class-conscious proleta- 
rian struggle. His motto is, "Brotherhood by brotherhood, 
peace by the path of peace." His ideal is the sea "of deep, sun- 
crowmed fraternity." A fitting conclusion to Rev. W. D. P/s 
manifesto of Blissful Socialism would be the paraphrase of 
the historical concluding sentences of the Communist mani- 
festo : Workingmen of all countries, good-night ! 



88 



What is Blissful Socialism? It is a conglomeration of con- 
servative or bourgeois with Utopian Socialism. To quote the 
Communist manifesto : 

"A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social 
grievances in order to secure the continued existence of the 
bourgeois society. The bourgeois Socialists want all the ad- 
vantages of modern social conditions without the struggles 
and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the 
existing state of society minus the revolutionary and disinte- 
grating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a 
proletariat. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a 
system, and thereby to march straightway into the social New 
Jerusalem, it but requires in reality that the proletariat should 
remain within the bonds of existing society, but 
should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning 
the bourgeoisie. It is summed up in the phrase: The bour- 
geoisie is a bourgeoisie, for the benefit of the working class. 
The undeveloped state of the class truggle, as well as their 
own surroundings, cause Socialists of this kind to consider 
themselves far superior to class antagonism. They want to im- 
prove the condition of every member of society, even that of 
the most favored. Here they habitually appeal to society at 
large, without distinction of class — nay, by preference to the 
ruling class. Here they reject all political, and especially all 
revolutionary action; they wish to attain their ends by peace- 
ful means, and endeavor by small experiments, necessarily 
doomed to failure. By degrees they sink into the category of 
the reactionary, conservative Socialists, differing from them 
only by more systematic pedantry and by their fantastical and 
superstitious belief in the miraculous effect of their social 
science. They therefore violently oppose all political action 
on the part of the working class; such action, according to 
them, can result only from blind unbelief in the new gospel." 
We consider Rev. W. D. P. Bliss's "movement" not 
only ridiculous (although well meant), but decidedly 
harmful, as it is likely to create more confusion in respect 
to what Socialism really means and stands for than already 
exists among the general public. Rev. D. W. P. Bliss is what 
we would call a confusionist, as he sufficiently proved by his 
would-be public activity for many, many years, a man with- 
out a clear vision ,without courage of his convictions, without 
backbone, a straddler. , Such people are fretful, they try to 



89 

please everyone, attempt much and finally accomplish noth- 
ing; they usually fail to gra8p situations, and grope around 
in the dark without realizing it. 

Socialism ran afford to look with compassion on the activity 

of such petty middle-class reformers posing as saviours of 

humanity. 



90 



XVIII. THE SINGLE TAX VERSUS SOCIALISM. 

When preparing for long years of exile into the "remotest 
and least populated parts of Eastern Siberia," (to use the 
official expression of the ukase of the Czar, by which I was 
banished as a political offender), I included in my modest 
traveling library the "Progress and Poverty" of Henry 
George. At first I immensely enjoyed the study of the gospel 
of single tax. Indeed the charm of the inspired words of the 
apostle and prophet of the nationalization of the soil, his reli- 
gious enthusiasm, beautiful style and warm humanitarian 
spirit, captivated me at once. In the dreary Arctic wilderness, 
"Progress and Poverty" sounded to me like a new revelation. I 
read it and re-read it, and — alas ! the more I read it, the 
less satisfied was I with the trend of the ideas of the author, 
his arguments and conclusions. The disenchantment was com- 
plete when I began to analyze the views of the author on capi- 
tal and labor. It was a puzzle to me, how such a seemingly 
brilliant economist (at least on the subject of rent) could 
make such puerile blunders when dealing with the foremost 
problem of the day. I was at a loss to understand how it was 
possible for such an ardent advocate of the nationalization of 
the soil, to fail to grasp the grander and more general idea of 
the nationalization of all tools of production, including the 
soil as a part of the whole system of the socialization of pro- 
duction. 

The single tax scheme looked to me then like the compro- 
mise of a petty politician, rather than the great plan of a 
philosopher and humanitarian. That social problems never 
were and never will be solved by financial or fiscal reforms was 
an axiom known to me when a high school boy. The single 
tax scheme, represented at first only as a means to the nation- 
alization of the soil (and it is a very poor means at that), in 
the end turned into a purpose itself, into a panacea against 
all social and economic evils. Here my suspicion was aroused 
to the highest degree. The mountain gave birth to a mouse ! 
The great thinker and humanitarian turned into a dispenser 
of sure cures and patent medicines. What a pitiful sight ! 
But is Mr. Henry George indeed the great thinker and scien- 
tist I took him for? I asked myself. I began once more 
to carefully study "Progress and Poverty," and to my great 



91 

surprise found much poverty of though 1 and little scientific 
progress in the book. 

About fifteen years have passed since the time when I first 
became acquainted with the gospel of the single tax, and since 
then the theory lias not deepened, broadened or advanced the 
fraction of an inch. In our time of mediocre scribbling and 
indiscriminate printing, even the single tax can boast of hav- 
ing a literature of its own. But great Gods — what a litera- 
ture ! It consists of nothing but a dull chewing over and over 
of the stale old cud, contained in the once famous book of its 
originator. Such is the fate of all pseudo-reformatory schemes 
conceived in half-knowledge, born in mental narrowness and 
reared by political incapacity. 

The single tax theory has not only proved itself incapable 
of healthy growth and development, but has become a stum- 
bling block for many timid and feeble minds, which other- 
wise would be receptive to some sound line of thought and 
reasoning. 

It is not the intention of the writer to bore his readers with 
even a brief exposition of the single tax theory. I shall neither 
endeavor to point out the one-sidedness of its explanation of 
pauperism, nor the total inadequacy of the ways and means 
it proposes for the cure. The enlightened reader will do this 
himself. We shall however expose some of the main fallacies 
of this still-born scheme of universal salvation of humanity 
by the faith cure of a single tax. 

Let us turn our attention first to Mr. George's views of in- 
terest on capital. According to his theory, interest on capital 
is a natural product of capital, but in no case an abstraction 
from the earnings of labor. For instance, the aging of wine, 
the increase of cattle and fruits are natural consequences of the 
investment of capital and therefore belong to the capitalists 
and to nobody else. This statement is not original with our 
author. It was tendered before as early as the sixteenth cen- 
tury by Biel, by Calvin (in his treatment of the canonical in- 
terdiction of usury) and most prominently by the physiocrats. 

Xearest to Mr. George comes Bentham, who tries to refute 
the objection of Aristotle to usury. The immortal Hellenic 
thinker declares that usury is unethical, because of the barren- 
ness of coin but Bentham replies, that once exchanged for cat- 
tle or invested in farming, money turns fruitful. The mis- 
take, however, of Mr. George and his predecesors consists in 



92 

the elimination of the element of labor from the so-called 
natural products of capital. Indeed natural sciences prove 
beyond any doubt that labor must always be applied to natural 
resources in order to create values. It is therefore idle to try 
to distinguish where the natural resources play a more and 
where a less prominent part in production. 

But aside from the superstitious idea of values created by 
nature alone — the question arises: Where is the justification 
of the exclusive ownership of the interest on capital by the 
capitalists, even if we admit for the sake of argument, that 
this interest is the result of the bounty of mother nature 
alone? The confusion of the interest theory of Mr. George 
appears still denser when we take into consideration that he 
at least partly admits that human labor is the only source 
of the creation of value. He considers rent on soil a crying 
injustice (and rightly), because there is no labor involved 
in the mere fact of possession of land. But he justifies interest 
on capital. The link between the theory of value and interest 
on capital was somehow lost by Mr. George, although both 
interest on capital, and rent on land obviously belong to one* 
and the same category of exploitation of labor by the monopo- 
listic owners of the tools of production. The fallacy of this 
distinction between rent and interest on capital makes all the 
rest of the reasoning of our author unsound. The interest 
theory is the sand on which he builds his airy castle of single 
tax. 

His second fallacy is the so-called harmony between capital 
and labor. It is true that in new countries, as the United 
States, interest and w^ages are both comparatively high, and 
for many reasons. But in old countries there is a pronounced 
antagonism between interest and wages. In other words, the 
interest on capital is higher where, and when wages are lower, 
and vice versa. In his zeal as an antagonist of rent, Henry 
George went even so far as to deplore the encroachment of 
the greedy landlord on the poor capitalist. It is almost touch- 
ing to see the crocodile tears shed by the prophet of single tax 
in view of the sad fate of capital exploited by landlordism ! 
But as a matter of fact the landlord in all countries is the 
victim of capital. The indebtedness of the landed proprietor 
to movable capital is a growing evil everywhere, and in some 
countries reaches alarming proportions. 

Toynbee, in his lectures on the industrial revolution in 



England, proves thai the riches of capitalists increase a great 

deal faster than the wealth of the owners of land. The won- 
derful industrial evolution furnished every advantage to capi- 
talism, while favoring landlords only slightly in comparison. 
The peculiar nature of the agricultural industry has kept it 
so far, and is likely to keep it a long lime, outside of the 
domain o\' Socialized labor characterizing the factory system 
of production. The prominence given to rent is, therefore, 
entirely out of date, and anachronistic to the extent of being 
ridiculous. It reminds one of Don Quixote fighting wind- 
mills, which lie takes in his delirium for knights and giants. 

But perhaps a single tax, in spite of all its wrong economi- 
cal theories, would be a great fiscal reform? Well, let us see. 
Take for instance, Mr. George's assertion, that a single tax, 
HMjual to the value of rent, would be more than sufficient to 
cover all the expenses of government and administration and 
would make all other taxes superfluous. Is this true? No- 
where in the world is rent so high as in England. The expro- 
priation of that rent, however, would not cover even three- 
fifths of the budget of the United Kingdom. Let us not 
insist on the immense difficulties of the introduction of a 
single tax. Let us suppose it to be as easy as the naive fol- 
lowers of George imagine. What would be the inevitable re- 
sult ? The small owners of land — the overwhelming majority 
of farmers — would be ruined and compelled to swell the over- 
crowded ranks of the city proletariat. 

But would the larger land owners profit by it ? Under the 
present condition their indebtedness is growing, and a heavy 
tax on the soil would lead to a still greater depreciation of 
land, which would then fall entirely into the hands of the 
owners of movable capital. 

The single tax proposition sounds simply like a sneer in our 
time, when the mass of agriculturists hardly cover their ex- 
penses, ami landed proprietors with great difficulty get even 
a small interest on their invested capital. 

And the laborer? How would the laborer be affected by the 
single tax scheme? The capitalists would certainly not miss 
the opportunity of screwing down the scale of wages corres- 
pondingly lower. It is no wonder therefore that the Social- 
ists of Germany are opposed to the single tax reform. 
The Socialists of the United States cannot fail to see 
in the single tax movement one of the innumerable reforms 



94 

that do not reform, and that besides have the drawback of 
turning the attention of the voters from the burning questions 
of the day, from living issues of the age to false issues and 
illusive watch-words of conscious or unconscious dema- 
gogues. 



!>:> 



XIX. INDIVIDUALISM AND CRIME. 

Divinely beautiful are the spring nights in the tayga, the 
primeval forests of Siberia. Nature is full of life, the bushes 
and fields, the grassy plains and ponds, the hills and valleys, 
the lakes and rivers, the azure sky and emerald earth. The 
paradise-like air is almost overburdened with the exquisite 
fragrance of numberless flowers. Nature is resting with the 
repose of a young giant. Mysterious sounds now and then 
reaeh the ear of the listener, the whispering of the leaves, 
the splashing of a brook, the rustle of wings of a scared bird, 
the rapid run of a beast of prey. These noises hush down as 
suddenly as they come, and then quiet reigns supreme, the 
quiet of life, joy and power. 

In the midst of this primeval forest, there is one spot which 
appears to be a habitation of men. Let us observe this spot 
more closely. It turns out to be a miserable, wooden shanty, 
serving as a prison station for the passing and repassing bands 
of "criminals" on the main Siberian road. Let us step a lit- 
tle closer to the building and take a peep inside. The weary 
sentinel, a raw recruit just taken from the plow, is looking 
in the opposite direction and dreaming about his native village 
and probably the girl he left behind him, and consequently 
will not notice us. Merciful sleep reigns in this filthy den, 
full of the dregs and scum of humanity, just as majestically 
as in the gorgeous palaces of the favorities of fate, the demi- 
gods of the crowd. Will you examine attentively the features 
of the sleeping criminals? Standing, sitting, lying in the 
closest vicinity to the huge night-tub whose contaminating 
contents flow over its rims and reach the floor in streams, 
they sleep as comfortably or uncomfortably as they can or 
must. Xot a breath of the paradise-like air of the surround- 
ing primeval forest penetrates into the prison. It is stifling 
and hot inside. The "air" filling the room is nothing but 
an infernal compound of deadly miasma. The pale, haggard, 
care-worn features of the sleepers, expressing all kinds of 
vice, hate, disappointment and above all, a deep weariness of 
life, make you shudder. Their features, however, express 
more than that — a bitter reproach. 

"Yes, look at us attentively, you virtuous citizens of the 
community, you fathers and children of respectable families !" 



96 

these features seem to say: "look at us, children of ill-fate, 
conceived in sin, born in squalor and misery, reared in extreme 
poverty. We erred grievously against you — respectable citizens 
— against society. And here we are, a warning and example 
to others. But did you, good citizens as you are, take care 
of our mothers when we were about to be born? Did you 
watch us when we were still innocent babies in the cradle? 
Did you feed us when we were hungry, did you quench our 
thirst, did you clothe our nakedness when we shivered from 
cold ? Did you teach us how to live and love humanity ? Did 
you supply us with work when we were idle ? It is true, we are 
now the worst enemies of society. But did not society treat 
us as enemies from the moment of our appearance in the 
world ? Oh ! run away, you 'good citizens/ This place 
is not good enough for you ! Leave us in our pan-demonium 
and visit some of your multi-millionaires. The multi- 
millionaire's royal palace is an earthly paradise. He is sur- 
rounded by a happy family and all the world pronounces his 
name with deep reverence. And why not? He spends for- 
tunes for charitable purposes of all kinds, builds churches, 
erects and endows universities, patronizes high art and litera- 
ture. But do not ask from whom and where he got his treas- 
ures. Evil tongues affirm that he never in his life earned 
a penny by the work of his hands. Many a merchant or 
clerk has ended his life by suicide. Many a widow and orphan 
have been compelled to take the beggar's staff. Many a fair 
maiden has been driven to tread the thorny path of sexual 
slavery. Many a frugal and honest laborer has died a pauper. 
And evil tongues affirm that all this misery was the direct re- 
sult of the marvelous manipulations of this financial wizard. 
The evil tongues even affirm that your twentieth century spe- 
culator, promoter, railroad king, trust-magnate and political 
boss hurt society more than we miserable, old-fashioned and 
stupid criminals !" 

That is what the features of the sleeping criminals seem 
to say. Do we interpret them rightly? 

Society is responsible for the consequences -'• of the 
imperfections of its organization. Criminals are the 
products of these imperfections. The professional 
criminals acquire their criminal habits in earliest 
youth, in the midst of the lowest strata of the 
slum -proletariat, in over-populated districts of industrial cen- 



( >7 

ters. Boys usually staH their criminal career with common 
vagrancy, turn thieves under the pressure of direct want, and 
end with graver offenses, when hardened by the persecution 
of the authorities and the heartlessneea of the people in gen- 
eral. Criminal propensities show themselves at a very tender 
age and develop into full bloom only where the conditions 
for their development are especially favorable. If counter- 
acted in time, these propensities are cheeked forever. Chil- 
dren with criminal inclinations form a well-marked type of 
physical degeneracy, a low stature, a small bend, weak eyes, 
a nervous temperament, unsatisfactory general development, 
excessive leanness, pallor, and aversion to any exertion. These 
physical defects are to a considerable extent the cause of their 
dreary profession. They are unable to compete with the nor- 
mal laborer. There is left for them only the choice between 
perpetual starvation and crime. Criminals are as a rule men- 
tally inferior, they are either stupid or have no will-power, 
or suffer from both defects at once. The conditions of family 
life to which they owe their birth, are in the majority of 
cases highly unfortunate. 

Most criminals have lost both parents or at least one at a 
verv tender age, or if they are both alive they are of such a 
character as to have only a demoralizing influence on their 
offspring. 

About 80 per cent of the parents of criminals are either 
verv immoral or themselves professional criminals. The eco- 
nomic condition of the young recruits of the irregular army 
of criminals is a very sad one. They can expect nothing from 
their parents and are physically and mentally weak them- 
selves. All these conditions, hereditary taint, physical and 
mental degeneracy, orphanage or bad parents, deep poverty, 
and the low moral standard of their environment, push chil- 
dren with criminal tendencies on the inclined plane of a crim- 
inal profession, where they naturally sink lower and lower, 
till they reach a stage where they are beyond redemption and 
become the worst enemies of society. 

And how does our capitalistic society treat its stepchildren, 
the criminals, the victims of wickedness and irrationality? 
It maintains a highly complicated and expensive machinery 
of secret and official police, public prosecutors, criminal courts 
with all their paraphernalia, prisons of all kinds, in order to 
catch the criminals in the act, or after they have committed 



98 

a crime, and then punish them, that is, take vengeance on 
them. 

That punishment of any kind does not have the effect of 
decreasing crime or making it less atrocious, is a generally 
acknowledged fact. And yet this barbarous penal system 
seems to gratify the feeling of "justice" of our capitalistic 
mob. 

The capitalistic mob divides humanity into two parts, the 
well-intentioned and malcontents. The malcontents have*to 
be kept in check by any means possible. It is not considered 
necessary to study the criminal class and to find out from 
where it conies, to where it goes, how it thinks, feels and 
suffers. The capitalistic mob is probably afraid that such 
study would compel it to resign its pharisaic and complacent 
self -adulation, that it would show that not all criminals are 
behind the bars, nor all the well-intentioned on this side 
of the grating. 

Probably this mob is afraid that such a study would lead to 
the overturning of the whole system of the present treatment 
of criminals, and replace the barabarous precept "an eye for 
an eye, a tooth for a tooth," with the more humane principle, 
"tout comprendre c'est tout pardonner," (to understand all 
means to pardon all). How low the moral standard of the cap- 
italistic mob is can be concluded from the generally acknowl- 
edged fact, that persons committing grave crimes against so- 
ciety, provided they are sufficiently rich and belong to the so- 
called upper class, succeed in escaping the odium of convic- 
tion by a court of "justice," and do not lose caste. A success- 
ful rascal is even held in higher esteem than an honest man 
who fails to succeed in a material way. The first is considered 
a smart fellow, the second a fool. Thus a premium is put 
on artful avoidance of the clutches of the blind goddess of 
capitalistic justice in our present society. 

What shall we do with our criminal class: is a problem 
treated in various ways by the press, pulpit and statesman, 
and perplexing many a learned man. This problem will not 
and cannot be solved so long as the foundations of society 
are such as to breed crime and criminals. Eent, profit and 
unpaid human labor, in short our capitalistic system, must be 
replaced by a higher, more humane social system, before 
crime will disappear as a menace to society. Moral conduct 
is just as normal to men as physical health. An immoral man 



99 

is a sick man. As hygienic measures are preferable to drug- 
ging, so is prevention of crime preferable to punishment for 

committed crimes. Rational and ethical, social economic 
conditions would destroy the commonest motives of crime and 
make it a relic of a barbarous past. 

In the Socialistic state, there would be no proletariat de- 
voured by a superior class, there would be no orphans left to 
their own fate. Children with criminal propensities would 
be treated in special schools and their vices eradicated before 
they grew too strong and unmanageable. There would be no 
necessity for criminal courts, prosecuting attorneys, police and 
all the rest of the safeguards of our capitalistic iniquity. 
There would be no private property to protect, no hunger to 
be appeased by stealing, no contrast between immensely rich 
and wretchedly poor to arouse the anxiety of the former 
and the envy of the latter. There would be no social condi- 
tions leading to over-refinement and ennui on one side and to 
bestialism on the other. 

The German poet says : "Das eben ist cler Fluch der boesen 
That, dass sie fortzeugend Boeses muss geben." (That is 
the very curse of the evil deed, that it gives birth to more 
prolific evil). The capitalistic system itself is based on cri- 
minal exploitation of men by men. It is cannabalism in dis- 
guise, nay worse than cannabilism. The human flesh eaters 
of Phidshy kill their victims before they eat his body. The 
capitalist system devours the bodies of the wage-slaves and 
their families, drinks their blood and swallows their brains 
while they are still alive and palpitate with energy and vigor. 
Is it a marvel that it breeds crime? 

LofC. 



100 



XX. SUICIDE AND INDUSTRIAL ANARCHY. 

The absolute and relative growth of suicide in our modern 
times and in all civilized countries of Europe is simply ap- 
palling. For lack of space we will glance at a few figures 
relating to France only : 

YEARLY AVERAGE OF SUICIDES. 



Year 


Annual Number 


3 •=> 

M 0h 


1827-1830 


1,739 
2,119 

2,574 
2,952 
3,446 
3,639 
4,002 
4,661 
5,207 
5,471 
6,250 
7,299 
8,268 


54 


1831-1835 


67 


1836-1840 


76 


1841-1845 


85 


1846-1850 


97 


1851-1855 


100 


1856-1860 


110 


1861-1865 


1?4 


1866-1869 


135 


1872-1875 


150 


1876-1880 


168 


1881-1885 


193 


1886-1890 


216 







In itself, suicide is not a very important phenomenon, some 
one may say. True enough. But dropsy, for instance, is not 
a very important sickness in itself, in fact no sickness at all, 
but a grave symptom of a frightful organic disease of the 
human body — of heart disease. So is suicide a grave symptom 
of some frightful social disease, a memento mori to the exist- 
ing social system itself. The tremendous increase of suicides 
shows beyond any doubt that the whole social body is organ- 
ically unsound. By analyzing the causes of suicide we may 
learn something useful about the social organic disease pro- 
ducing it. 

First of all we must agree on the definition of suicide. 
What is suicide? The celebrated French sociologist, E. Duerk- 



101 

heim, defines it as follows: "Suicide is any kind of death 
directly or indirectly resulting from active or passive actions 

(for instance, abstention from food) of a person, perpetrated 
in full knowledge of the inevitablen&ss of the consequences." 
This definition excludes tin 4 unconscious suicide of a lunatic, 
and includes the deatli o\' "martyrs, dying for convictions, or a 
mother for her child." Suicide is not accidental, it is suhject 
to certain social laws, like every other phenomenon of human 
life and death. In every society there exist "suicidal cur- 
rents," whose strength and dimensions are determined and 
conditioned by the peculiarities of the social structure itself 
to such an extent as to he a fixed feature of this structure. 
The average of suicides for the period 1840-1870 was in 
France 23 per thousand, in England 22, Denmark 20, Italy 
31, and Austria 32. The difference between these numbers 
is exceedingly small, being equal to iy 2 pe r cen t only. The 
general mortality, however, in these countries fluctuates in 
still narrower limits, 1 1-4 per cent. But the most discourag- 
ing feature of this analysis is the fact that when the tendency 
of natural mortality is unmistakably in the direction of a 
common level and fixedness for long periods and in different 
countries, the average of suicide is alarmingly increasing. A 
careful study of the cosmic, organic, physical, racial, religious 
and economic causes of suicides leads to the conclusion of 
the subordinate and secondary importance of these causes. 
The main factor of the increase or decrease of suicide in a 
given time and society is the degree of the integration or 
disintegration of that society. In other words, everything 
tending to unite man, diminishes the number of suicides, and 
vice versa. Duerkheim distinguishes two kinds of suicide 
(what he calls the "anomic" kind of suicide is only a sub- 
division, according to our view, of the egotistic kind of sui- 
cide, and we allow ourselves the liberty of omitting it as a 
separate category. Eemark of the author) namely: 
1, egotistic, and 2, altruistic suicides. Egotistic sui- 
cide is the consequence of the boundless expansion 
of personal inclinations, desires and interests in 
conjunction with a perfect absence of consciousness 
of social obligations and duties. Our contemporary so- 
ciety, with its pronounced individualistic tendencies and ex- 
tremely loose social consciousness is favorable for the growth 
of egotistic suicides. Altruistic suicide is committed by persons 



102 

whose individual ambitions and desires are very little devel- 
oped in comparison with consciousness of kind and the col- 
lective interests of the society to which they belong. The 
archaic communes formed the most favorable field for such 
kinds of suicides. And even in our time some exceptional 
personalities consciously sacrifice their lives on the altar of 
some grand idea. Altruistic suicides are possible only in 
highly integrated societies. 

Family ties are to a great extent a safeguard against sui- 
cide, but in the main only so far as they fulfil their task, that 
is, so far as they are blessed with offspring. This safeguard 
is directly proportional in its efficiency to the number of chil- 
dren. The number of suicides among childless married 
women, for instance, is considerably higher than that among 
unmarried women of the same age. It is the integrating pow- 
er of mutual attachment that makes the family a safeguard 
against suicide. 

The same is noticeable in the relation of the citizen to the 
state. Civic disintegration always leads to an increase of sui- 
cides, as was the case in the time of the fall of the Eoman 
empire, during the decline of ancient Greece, and before the 
French revolution. But times of revival of civic consciousness 
and virtues are always characterized by a fall in the number of 
suicides. Even great social perturbances and popular wars 
leading to an immense loss of life and destruction of property 
work in the same direction, as can be illustrated by the great 
French revolution, the revolution of 1848, the time of the 
Franco-Prussian war, and the Commune. The struggle 
against a common danger unites people and makes them feel 
as units of a great whole. Eeligious bodies — as far as they 
are an integrating power and entirely independent of their 
ethical or philosophical value — counteract likewise the ten- 
dency to suicide. 

Industrial disturbances form the arena for great increases 
in the number of suicides, as is shown by the crisis in Germany 
during the so-called "Gruenderthum" following the victory 
over France, by the collapse of the Catholic bank of Bontoux 
in 1882 and many others. It is not poverty that drives people 
to suicide, but the economic insecurity and continual fluctua- 
tion, the ups and downs of "prosperity" and "hard times." 

In primitive societies, the individual amounted to nothing, 
while the social group was every thing. The enslaving of the 



103 

personality to the community was highly unfavorable to any 
kind of progress. The reaction against this ancient regime 

was natural. The emancipation of the individual from the 
voke of the community has advanced rapidly in our time and 
seems not yet to have run its full course. The Manchester 
school gave to extreme individualism its quasi-scientific sanc- 
tion. Even the theory of evolution was dragged in by the hair 
for the same purpose. Prudhon and Krapotkin reduced| 
so-called "liberalism" to the absurdity of anarchism. Accord- 
ing to them the individuality should be everything, while the 
community should be left to exist from the crumbs falling 
from the individual table of the sovereign personality. 
To whom shall the future belong? To the sovereign 
personality or to the sovereign community? But is there 
such an alternative?* Could not both extremes be united, 
without any injury to the sovereignty of either? Indeed the 
excess of the personal interests in our modern society leads 
just as surely to social disintegration and suicide as the lack 
of it in primitive societies to stagnation and degeneration. 
The real remedy against both extremes is constructive So- 
cialism, the application of the results of the scientific study of 
society to the practical purposes of the reorganization of socie- 
ty on new, sound and rational principles of brotherly co-opera- 
tion. The principle "homo homini lupus" of the present social 
system of animal struggle for existence must be replaced by 
solidarity, savage competition by enlightened emulation. The 
industrial anarchy and speculation in trade must be regu- 
lated according to strict principles of supply, demand and 
rules of equity. The future belongs to a Socialistic structure 
of society, in which each individual member shall with full 
consciousness, and without any physical coercion, but from 
purely rational motives and ethical emotions, co-operate ac- 
cording to his powers with other fellow citizens with the clear 
purpose of furthering directly the common weal, and indi- 
rectly his own private happiness. The means leading to such 
a bright future are in the hands of all productive members 
of our commonwealth. Let us make society a special object 
of our study, let us build and maintain trade unions and other 
professional organizations, let us use our civic rights as voters 
intelligently, and conscientiously, and the results will not fail 
to come our way. 



104 

XXI. THE CLAMOR FOR PEACE IN CAPITALIST SO- 
CIETY. 

Let us imagine a grain of dust whirling through endless 
space and inhabited by ridiculously small living atoms. If 
these tiny creatures could realize the colossal dance they par- 
ticipate in, they might lose their senses from mere terror. 
Their fragile dwelling rushing through emptiness is kept to- 
gether only by the mutual attraction of its parts on one side 
and of similar grains of dust, in company with which it is 
rapidly moving toward an unknown goal on the other side. 

This grain of dust called the earth, together w T ith its inhabi- 
tants, is rotating around its own axis and at the same time 
moves around the sun with the astounding rapidity of 600,000 
miles in twenty-four hours. The entire system of the 
visible starry world is rushing into space with the hardly im- 
aginable rapidity of sixty million miles in a year. We move two 
miles a second without a moment of rest. TKe earth can never 
get to the bottom of the awful abyss called space, and millions 
of years of constant motion do not make a difference of a 
hair's breath in the position of the earth from the point of 
of view of eternity! These infinitesimal living atoms — 
human beings clinging tenaciously to the rotating grain of 
dust — the earth. O how small and insignificant are they from 
the point of view of eternity. Insignificant as the race is from 
this point of view, it is a giant in one respect, being endowed 
with the divine gift of reason. Human reason which is 
capable of grasping the whole world, of measuring the distance 
between stars and of determining the velocity of their motion. 

Ought not these reasoning beings realize their role in nature 
and bend all their energies in the direction of mutual help- 
fulness, good will and fellow-feeling ? 

Ought not they devote the small space of time allotted to 
them as a gift of life in the most rational manner to acts of 
fraternal love, peace and co-operation ? 

Ought not the consciousness of the stern and unchangeable 
laws of the inanimate world weld them together in emulation, 
in spiritual achievements, noble aspirations, scientific research 
and fine arts for the general benefit of the race ? 

Ought not Justice, Freedom and Peace be the dearest treas- 
ures of humanity ? 

The past and present of the human race represents, 



105 

however, the very picture of struggle, strife and war 

between man and man. tribe and tribe, cast and cast, class and 

class. All the ingenuity of men is benl towards the invention 
of new methods and tools of annihilation, of murder. Arrows 
are dipped in poison, swords sharpened, fire and iron put into 
the service of death, armies drilled and organized, national, 
race and class hatreds cultivated artificially. Even science 
and fine arts are turned into subservience to the moloch of war 
and strife. 

The most sacred feelings are profaned in the interests of 
cold-blooded murder on a grand scale called war. Civilization, 
Culture, Christianity are often claimed as demanding blood- 
shed. The grain of cosmic dust called the earth is soaked 
with the blood of the living atoms called rational human be- 
ings. Nations boasting of representing the highest type of hu- 
manity are constantly engaged in the so-called art of war. 
We kill off the lower races in order to civilize them, to 
christianize them, to raise the level of their culture. We 
kill off the lower races just because we love them so dearly 
and want them to be as good as we ourselves. We feel deeply 
our obligation towards our younger brothers in humanity 
and if we thrash the life out of them in our unselfish effort 
to raise them to our level of culture and civilization it is of 
course not our fault. The fittest always survive and we are 
fortunately the fittest. 

Let us. however, for a moment pause and reflect in the en- 
deavor to find the clue to the fatal incongruity between 
the peace and fraternity so deeply woven into human 
nature and the sordid zoological self-destruction practiced 
by the human race from time immemorial till the twentieth 
century — the age we so childishly boast about. 

The strongest instinct in human nature is the instinct of 
self-preservation. We want to live and all the efforts of our 
body and mind are devoted to the creation of conditions favor- 
able to the preservation of our life. These conditions are 
modifications of our environment. Our environment consists 
of the sub-human and human world. On the lowest stage of 
civilization the work of creating an artificial environment out 
of the elements found in nature was quite frequently a very 
hard task. The primitive tools and undeveloped skill of the 
primeval man were unequal to that task, and it was quite 
natural that killing off a fellow-being was considered as quite 



106 

legitimate when done for the purpose of preserving one's life. 
This was the epoch of cannibalism. The strong were 
considered as the fittest, as in our time; but in a narrower 
sense. With the advance of civilization this struggle 
with the sub-human and human environment changed 
gradually in intensity. The more perfected tools and 
skill enabled men to master nature with great ease. 
As far as the conquest of natural forces is concerned, the crea- 
tion of the artificial environment necessary for the existence 
of men is almost a solved problem. The necessity for a strug- 
gle between man and man has practically disappeared and 
with it the moral justification of such a strife. The ideals of 
eternal peace and brotherhood, as all human ideals, are the 
outgrowth of actual material conditions. They are, however, 
aiways the advance agents of a higher stage of culture and 
civilization. The ideals of a preceding age form the fabric 
of actual conditions of the following age. 

Our present social status represents a chaotic conglomera- 
tion of the germs of future institutions. The archaic 
institutions, institutions which have outlived their utility, 
prevail. Chief among these archaic institutions is the eco- 
nomic basis of society, the basis of a struggle between man 
and man in contrast to the future co-operation of men against 
nature. As long as the principle of so-called competition and, 
consequent exploitation, the mercantile ideas about profit and 
gain, the industrial individualism and subjugation of the 
producer to the drones of society prevail, eternal peace 
of necessity remains a beautiful dream. Indeed, it is 
futile to expect the cessation of war in a society founded on 
struggle and strife. To talk about abolition of war in our 
present mercantile and capitalistic society means to indulge 
in cant. The realization of the beautiful dream of eternal 
peace is left to a higher stage of culture and civilization, 
when men will have left behind them the inheritance of bar- 
baric ages, the so-called struggle for existence between men 
and men; when commodities will be manufactured, not for 
profit and speculation, but for use and enjoyment; when 
man's power will not be degraded into a purchasable com- 
modity; when the soil and all its bounty will be considered 
the legitimate inheritance of all human beings, irrespective 
of race, class or sex distinctions; when reason and the best 
instincts of human nature will be the sole guides of conduct. 



107 • 

Eternal peace is possible only in a society founded on the 
principle of brotherly co-operation. Philistine morality, 
preaching and exhortation, are as little likely to bring about 
eternal peace as conjuring. Without a conscious evolution 
of economic conditions we may clamor till doomsday, but 
there will be no peace. 



108 



XXII. THE EIGHTS OF WOMEN. 

There can be no "brotherhood of men" without the corres- 
ponding sisterhood of women ; the so-called "rights of men" 
will remain a dead letter until the rights of women shall have 
been attained. There can be no equality among men as long 
as the equality of women with men is not recognized. A "free 
man." in the true sense of the term, can be born of and 
brought up only by a free mother. A man cannot be actually 
free as long as his sisters, his wife and daughter are slaves. 
He cannot be a good citizen as long as they are deprived of 
the rights of citizenship. 

A true democracy is unthinkable without the full and un- 
equivocal recognition of the civic rights of women. Keason, 
justice and practical considerations are on the side of the 
champions of women's rights. Ignorance, superstition and 
aristocratic tendencies are against the emancipation of women 
from their subjugation to the so-called stronger sex. 

Can there be any doubt as to the attitude of the Socialists 
of America towards this problem ? There may be some di- 
versity of opinion as to the ways and means of solving the 
problem, however. The Socialists of the old school would like 
to erect a Chinese wall between the women of the laboring 
class and their bourgeois sisters, adding to their general theo- 
ries of class-consciousness, that of class-exclusiveness. The 
orthodox Socialists forget that women have their own class- 
interests apart from the interests of the class to which their 
fathers and husbands belong. 

Engel said: "In the family, man is the bourgeois 
and woman represents the proletariat." The woman of 
the bourgeois class is a slave while her proletarian sis- 
ter is a slave of a slave. Why, then, in the name of 
common sense, should the proletarian woman refuse to 
struggle with her bourgeois sister side by side as far and as 
long as their interests as a class, as women, are identical? 

The proletarian woman can not expect her emancipation 
before the entire sex is emancipated. She has a double bur- 
den to bear, the burden of a woman and the burden of a pro- 
letarian. She belongs at one and the same time to two ex- 
ploited, downtrodden and disinherited classes. To demand 
from her that she should forget her sex class-interests for 



(09 

her social-economic interests is the climax of absurdity. 
We mighl as well ask a negro slave to forgel his double chains 

of racial and economic slavery and renounce any attempt to 
free himself from the yoke of the white slave holder in 
order to reserve all his energies for the general struggle of the 
laboring class against their exploiters. 

Ts not the political disfranchisement of women iYi all civi- 
lized countries actually identical with political slavery? Is 
economic emancipation imaginable without political rights? 
That the male proletarian is an exploiter of the female pro- 
letarian is an undeniable fact. Is there any sense in demand- 
ing that she devote all her energies to improve the condition of 
her exploiters in expectation that her own fate may improve 
indirectly, instead of uniting with others of her class in de- 
manding political freedom. Only by gaining political rights 
will the proletarian woman become a political power, and then 
she will be able to help more effectively in the stuggle of the 
proletarian class against capitalism. 

Another objection to the co-operation between women of 
all classes for the purpose of conquering political rights ad- 
vanced by some orthodox Socialists is that the emancipation 
of women cannot be accomplished under our present social 
economic system. This objection is hardly true. If the 
women of the United States, for instance, should seriously 
demand political rights, they would obtain them. That the 
women of the United States have no political rights is not 
wholly because men oppose it, but chiefly because the women 
themselves have not become conscious of their class needs. 
Superficial observers may think lightly about women's clubs 
and sneer at the club-woman. There is not the slightest 
doubt, however, that these seemingly insignificant institutions 
perform quietly and unostentatiously a useful missionary 
function in developing a class-conscious political woman 
movement. That this movement is bound in the near future 
to crystalize into a direct demand for civic rights for women 
is certain. 

What the effects of the political emancipation of women on 
the prospects of Socialism in the United States would be is 
a very interesting question. It is true there are fewer women 
Socialists in the country than men. Even the wives of many 
Socialists are indifferent or outspokenly opposed to Socialism. 

The propaganda of Socialism among them has been neg- 



110 

lected. Futhermore, women have not had the development 
which comes from working with their peers for a common 
master. Each woman has teen trained to look out for her 
own exploiter on whom she is to be doubly dependent. It has, 
theref ore, been more difficult for them to recognize their com- 
mon interest. The recognition of Socialism comes from a 
consciousness of class interests and organization is promoting 
that consciousness. 

Women are as easily interested in the new social economic 
theories as men, but their mode of reasoning is different, 
and the spurs to their interest must be made to their feminine 
needs. 

It ought to be easy to prove to women that the transforma- 
tion from a capitalistic system to a collectivist one will be to 
her gain. As a child, a girl, a wife, or a mother she is at a 
great disadvantage in this industrial age. Her training is 
such as to fit her for an inferior position in society. She is 
expected to appear at the best advantage in the matrimonial 
show-window as a waiting commodity or ware. As marriage 
is considered to be her final destination, all the qualities and 
graces calculated to please her future sovereign are carefully 
developed, all those likely to repel him are as carefully re- 
pressed. The approval of man is her objective aim, and her 
economic dependence stimulates competition among the mar- 
riageable women and degrades them. 

Nothing is more pitiable than a girl hunting for a hus- 
band. The bourgeois woman in such a case is more pitiable 
than her proletarian sister. Accustomed to a certain ease of 
life, unfit to compete industrially, she is entirely at the mercy 
of the fluctuations in the matrimonial market. 

This market, with all its humiliation and indignity, is be- 
ing contracted by the disintegrating influences of industrial 
activity, which are bearing also upon family life. The stand- 
ard of life among men is advancing in inverse ratio to 
their ability to earn a living; the uncertainty of employment, 
the demoralizing influence of constant contact with the lower 
types of the proletarian woman in shop and factory lead to 
their disinclination to marry. The economic bondage of capi- 
talism weighs more heavily on the proletarian woman than 
on the man. Her lower physical standard, her legal dis- 
ability, her political disfranchisement make her an unwelcome 
and dangerous rival wherever machine production is intro- 



Ill 

ducedj so that unenviable ae is the life of the married prole- 
tarian woman the life of the single woman is more so. A lone- 
ly life filled with monotonous toil, cramped by insufficient 

wages leads to a miserable old age 4 . The solution of the woman 
problem must follow the evolutionary lines of the man pro- 
blem. Her economic emancipation must follow her political 
emancipation. She is now entering upon the class-conscious- 
ness of the latter; that attained, her recognition of the next 
step will quickly follow and all effort to keep the proletarian 
woman apart from the bourgeois woman until after their poli- 
tical enfranchisement is the work of a remnant of capitalistic 
instinct dormant in proletarian man. 



112 



XXIII. THE EIGHTS OF CHILDREN. 

In its solicitude for the preservation of species, nature im- 
planted in the heart of the animal the instinct of affection 
for offspring. Even the most ferocious beats of prey — the 
tiger and lion, are endowed with the instinct of love for 
their progeny. The higher an animal species stands on the lad- 
der of evolution, the longer is the period of its helpless in- 
fancy, the better the care given it during that period. 

That the instinct of attachment to offspring reaches its 
highest stage of development in the human race is only nat- 
ural. "Child" is the most pathetic word in the human vo- 
cabulary. The human heart does not know any more endear- 
ing sight than that of an infant in its touching helplessness 
and perfect abandon. The human heart is overflowing with 
tender emotion at the contemplation of the sweet enigma of 
childhood. In the entire material world there is nothing more 
sacred, pure and full of radiant hope than childhood with its 
vast possiblities of development into an ideal maturity. What 
a dismal desert life without childhood would be ! What is a 
human family without the crowning glory of children ? 

These and similar considerations and thoughts involuntar- 
ily suggest themselves to every student of human society. 
The development of human society from a herd of. half -brutes 
and savages to a race of civilized and cultured beings may 
be measured by the kind and degree of care and attention it 
bestows upon its offspring. The higher a nation stands on 
the stage of culture and civilization the stronger is its race- 
consciousness, the more pronounced is the recognition of its 
duty towards future generations, the more emphatic is its as- 
sertion of the rights of children as members of society. 

Time and space allow us to point out here only the most im- 
portant rights of children. In the first instance each and 
every human child has a right to be well bred physically. It 
is, therefore, the duty of society to see that no physical wrecks, 
degenerates^ incurably sick, especially those affected with con-^ 
tagious constitutional diseases, should be allowed to burden 
future generations with their offspring. This duty may 
appear cruel and tyrannical to those who will be denied by 
its fulfillment the rights to family life. There is, however, 
immensely more cruelty in the conscious deterioration of the 



113 

human race by the breed of unfortunates, who are, by their 
very nature, hound to be a burden to themselves and a curse 
to their fellow beings. We take great care in constantly im- 
proving the physical type of our domestic animals by con- 
scious sexual selection, but are reckless in this respect as far 
as the human race is concerned, as if the human race should 
be subjected to other laws of evolution than the rest of the 
animal kingdom. 

In our present commercial society the most sacred human 
relations — the family relations — are corroded by stupid and 
cruel mercantile considerations and irrational economic con- 
ditions. The matrimonial market is a recognized social in- 
stitution, in the same sense as the board of trade. Pure affec- 
tion between the representatives of different sexes at the age 
of maturity seldom furnishes the basis of family life. 
In most cases love is declared by the "prudent parents" to be 
mere moonshine and nonsense and young people are mis- 
mated and sacrificed on the altar of mammon. The result 
of such family life, which is nothing but legalized prosti- 
tution, on the progeny must be disastrous. Imbeciles, pro- 
fligates, professional criminals and degenerates may get the 
sexual commodity called husband or wife on the matrimonal 
market if they happen to be financially well situated. 
The proletarian, how r ever, sound in body and mind he may be, 
is often denied the privilege of normal matrimonial life, the 
blessing of healthy and spiritually gifted children, by the 
existing economic conditions. The result in this case is pro- 
stitution not recognized by law. Capitalism this way under- 
mines the very foundation of human society by disintegrating 
and perverting its basic institution — the family, and causing 
the degeneration of the race. 

The right of children to be w^ell bred physically will be fully 
inaugurated in the co-operative commonwealth, w T here the hu- 
man family will be emancipated from the curse of commer- 
cialism, the shams of conventional mercantile morality and 
the hypocrisy of institutional religion. 

The other right of children is the right to the full 
development of all the faculties of their body and mind 
by society, to the best advantage of society. In our 
present capitalistic society there is quite a little done 
for the educational and professional training of the 
upper classes, the children of the masses, however, 



114 

are more or less left to their own fate. Even in our so-called 
glorious republic, only an insignificant fraction of the chil- 
dren of the proletariat are able to take advantage of the public 
schools, while the high schools, colleges and universities exist 
only for the so-called higher classes. This inequality of edu- 
cational opportunities tends to perpetuate the social — econo- 
mic inequalities of our industrial age, to the advantage of the 
classes and to the detriment of the masses. The accident of 
birth, not the ability of a child, determines the position it 
shall occupy in society, owing to the education it will receive 
or to the denial of any education. The result is that 
genius often plods behind the plough, while mediocrity oc- 
cupies a higher position in life. The waste of energy and 
ability due to such abnormal conditions is beyond calcu- 
lation. The inequality of opportunities between the child of 
a capitalist and the child of a proletarian, in respect to the 
chances to be useful to society to the full extent of their capa- 
city, are striking enough to make all phrases about democracy 
and equality under our present system odious and contemp- 
tible to every fair minded man. The child of the proletarian 
not only enters the arena of struggle for existence under 
highly unfavorable conditions in comparison with that of the 
capitalist, but the disadvantages increase. The exhausting 
and soul -killing drudgery of physical labor, the humilation 
of poverty and insecurity of means of livelihood, with its 
anxieties and cares, weaken his physical power and dull his 
mind. 

Under the co-operative commonwealth all class distinctions 
will be abolished. There will be neither tramps nor million- 
aires, neither proletarians nor capitalists. A human child 
will be looked upon as precious material for the up-building 
of society. Society will be directly interested in making the 
best use of this material to its own best advantage. Education 
and professional training will be not only free and accessible 
to all, but obligatory upon all. Ignorance and illiteracy 
will be banished forever from human society and every talent 
will find ample field for fruitful activitiy. The human child 
will be in the fullest sense installed in its inalienable rights 
and prerogative. 



115 



XXIV. THE soiMAL EVIL AND COMMERCIALISM. 

It is not easy to cure a deep-rooted organic disease, even 
when the patient is fully aware of his ailment and volun- 
tarily submits to any treatment prescribed by the expert phy- 
sician or surgeon. The task is indisputably harder, however, 
when the patient, unconscious of his precarious condition, 
does not consider himself sick at all, and scorns the idea of 
medical treatment. 

It is not easy to free slaves, conscious of their slavery; it 
is, however, a far harder task to free slaves who were born, 
reared and live in the illusion of being free men. 

And this is exactly the case with the American proletariat. 
A European workingman knows that he cannot always get or 
retain his "job." The a.verage American workingman, however, 
is still imagining that "jobs" are ready for him as soon as 
prosperity sets in, and that prosperity may be brought about 
by professional politicians of one or the other of the old par- 
ties. He scorns the idea of being a slave, because he does not 
see and feel his chains with his eyes and hands, as Thomas 
the doubter, felt the wounds on the body of Jesus Christ. The 
American proletarian is still living in the illusion that by dint 
of perseverance and a turn of good luck, he may become a capi- 
talist himself, and then treat his fellow workers as he is now 
treated by his master. He is himself a capitalist in spirit, 
his ethics and philosophy of life are those of his masters. If 
he objects to capitalistic rule at all, he does it on narrow, per- 
sonal grounds. He would like to be an exploiter himself, 
and has little, if any, objection to exploitation in itself. We 
know these are hard assertions. But truth is more important 
than the friendship of Plato. 

The ta«k of Socialism is to open the eyes of the pro- 
letariat of the United States to its actual condition, to make 
it feel and realize the weight of its chains, and to abandon 
its capitalistic philosophy of life and code of ethics. Until 
this is accomplished, the Socialistic movement cannot expect 
to be a power in the land. The best means to accomplish this 
is to prove that Socialism is not a theory but a conscious evo- 
lutionary movement; to use the facts of actual life as an 
illustration of the real condition of the proletariat; to allow 
the modern Thomas, the doubter, to touch with his hands the 



116 

bleeding wounds of his own class, of his brothers, sisters, 
wives and children. 

If the male proletarian is a slave, the female proletarian is 
a slave of slaves. If the male proletarian is compelled to sell 
his working power, his muscles, nerves and blood to the capi- 
talist or starve; if he is degraded to a simple machine produc- 
ing wealth for somebody else, nay, to a mere appendage of a 
dead machine — his mother, sister, sweetheart or wife, under 
similar conditions, is frequently compelled to drop lower even 
than that, to lose even the dignity of an animal, and sell her 
person for the privilege of leading the miserable vegetation 
(it cannot be called life) of a sexual slave, of a prostitute, 
Prostitution is the direct consequence of commercialism, of 
a state of society in which human beings are considered a 
mere commodity, salable and purchasable for money like any 
other commodity. Prostitutes are proletarians in the first in- 
stance, and prostitution is a phenomenon of social pathology 
due to the same causes as those which produce the proletarian 
class. 

In the period of the decadence of Greece and Rome, the 
institution of slavery was shaken, and mercantilism raised its 
head for the first time in the history of the West. Indigent 
women appeared, who were dependent for their existence on 
their sexual nature. The first professional prostitutes were 
"freed slaves/ Prostitution or sexual slavery was at once 
recognized as a social institution. In the middle ages the 
class of prostitutes was organized into a guild or trade union, 
and enjoyed legal recognition in the person of a yearly elected 
"queen" of prostitutes. This queen was duly sworn in by the 
government and empowered to prosecute all "scab" prosti- 
tutes. At that period the rule of the male over the female in 
human society was in full sway, and even the fathers, brothers 
and some of the proletarian women looked with complacency 
on such institutions as the "jus primae noctis." The alleged 
infidelity of a wife was punished by compulsory prostitution 
for life. Municipalities engaged in the business of running 
houses of ill-fame. Even some of the popes of Rome kept 
such houses, from which they derived a part of their princely 
income (Sixtus IV., for instance). Rome never was especially 
scrupulous about the source of the money flowing to it, ac- 
cording to its own proverb, "non olet" ("It does not smell" — 
that is, ill-gotten money). 



117 

The rapid spread of protestantism and syphilis put an end 

to the institutional period of sexual slavery. The discovery 
of America and the general development of commerce ushered 
in the most typical and perfect form of commercialism — our 

modern industrial or capitalistic era. More perfect methods 
have beeij applied to the trade in human flesh called prostitu- 
tion. Sexual slavery lias been turned into a regular branch of 
international trade. Hundreds of thousands of "free" proletar- 
ian women are enticed by professional agents into dismal 
abodes of vice, stand ing, under the official or secret protection 
of the police, and kept there in order to eke out a miserable 
existence for themselves and create fortunes for their "em- 
ployers." These professional agents travel from one end of 
the globe to the other in search of fresh sexual slaves destined 
to take the place of the rapidly used-up old ones. The de- 
mand for additional bands of slaves in some localities, where 
there is a prospect of even a temporary influx of people is 
eag?rly watched by these agents and met by them promptly, 
as in the case of fairs or army maneuvres. 

Where do all the professional prostitutes come from ? This 
is a highly interesting question. Any one knowing the nature 
of women, not from the point of view of a man whose mind is 
poisoned with ideas belonging to the pestilential atmosphere of 
sexual profligacy, but from the point of view of a son, brother 
or husband, will admit that no innocent woman will take re- 
fuge in professional prostitution, even under the pressure of 
the direst need ; that an honest woman brought up in the pure 
atmosphere of love and devotion, will prefer suicide to sexual 
slavery. In fact, the professional prostitute has fallen grad- 
ually down the inclined plane of professional vice till she has 
reached a stage where there is no hope of a decent life for 
her. Economic conditions compel the proletarian to send his 
own daughters, usually before they reach maturity, into the 
industrial field, where they compete with him. They succeed 
in lowering his earnings, but themselves get wages that are 
ridiculously insufficient to cover their most urgent needs. The 
young girl knows little of the perfidy of life, nothing of the 
beastly meanness of the male animal lurking in almost every 
man. She is young and perhaps beautiful. She wants to live 
and enjoy life like her more fortunate sisters. Her earnings 
do not allow her even to dress herself decently. Her cousin 
proletarian, with whom she works, cannot afford to marry her, 



118 

although he loves her dearly. Suppose she works in one of 
the mammoth department stores. The manager notices that 
she is poorly dressed and thinks that this may hurt his trade. 
He tells her she must dress better or quit the job. "But I do 
not earn enough even to pay my board," answers the girl in 
despair. "Have you no gentleman friend who will help you ?" 
is the cynical suggestion of the manager, who perhaps is him- 
self not disinclined to be for a while this friend in need. But 
then there is a whole class of professional and unprofessional 
young men who want to live and enjoy life, but cannot afford 
to keep up a family on a standard corresponding to their ideal 
of living decently. The proletarian girl has no trouble in 
finding a friend, and gets along for a time in the bliss of 
"first love," at least on her part. The friend betrays her. She 
loses faith in human nature, turns cynical, and after a few 
such experiences engages in prostitution as a "side line." 
Then, little by little, the "side line" turns into a regular pro- 
fession, and she is lost. 

Who will dare to throw a stone at the modern proletarian 
Magdalene ? Did we not, as members of the present society, 
deliberately drive her to her fate ? Is the prostitute not pun- 
ished enough in that she stands in need of our Pharasaic com- 
passion and charity? This unfortunate daughter of the pro- 
letariat wants justice, not charity ! Is the capitalistic class 
any more moral than the class of proletarians ? Is not com- 
mercialism permeating all the philosophy of life of the middle 
class? Does not the matrimonial market of the "upper 
classes" bear a purely commercial aspect ? Do not young men 
and women of so-called "respectable families" look chiefly for 
pecuniary advantages in their matrimonial affairs? Are not 
many matrimonial unions sanctioned by law and church worse 
than prostitution, because the element of dire need as an ex- 
cuse is eliminated ? 

Proletarians! are your sisters, daughters and sweethearts 
in danger under the present economic system? Save them 
from sexual slavery by abolishing the system enslaving your 
own class. 



ii9 



XXV. SHOULD TBADE UNIONS ENTER POLITICS? 

What would you think of the South African Boers, if in 
their struggle with England, they should refuse to take ad- 
vantage of the very best modern weapons of warfare, prefer- 
ring the use of bows, arrows, spears or other paraphernalia of 
ante-deluvian arsenals? To put this question is to answer it. 
\o Bane person would attempt to argue against the proposi- 
tion, that in order to have the ghost of a show of success, 
one must fight with weapons just as efficient as those of the 
enemy, and meet the adversary on his own grounds and pre- 
mises if possible. 

And yet there are quite a number of people who would fain 
make believe, that the best way to improve the condition of 
the workingmen as a class is to turn them into political eu- 
nuchs, to emasculate them politically. These would be friends 
of the workingmen pretend to be the true and the only true 
champions of simon-pure trade-unionism and like to pose as 
opponents to the introduction of the virus of political corrup- 
tion into labor organizations. According to the dicta of these 
simon-pure trade-unionists the struggle between laborers and 
exploiters is a purely economic struggle and has nothing to 
do with politics. Nay — even more than that. "The introduc- 
tion of politics into trade unions" — so the simon-purists 
maintain — "would result in the dissolution of labor organiza- 
tions." 

Let us now examine the arguments just briefly mentioned 
and stated. First of all, let us see if it Is true, that the strug- 
gle between labor and its exploiters is a purely economic 
struggle. Who runs our national, state and municipal ad- 
ministration, if not the exploiters of labor and their hired 
servants ? Why do they spend millions in "educational cam- 
paigns" in order to gain political power and influence? Are 
they taking all this trouble out of pure love of country and the 
"dear people ?" Of course not. The exploiters of labor and 
their obedient hirelings, the professional politicians, certainly 
engage in practical politics, for the economic power it gives 
them over those who are "not in politics" or play in it the 
part of underdog. As masters of the legislative and exe- 
cutive power the exploiters of labor may and do enact laws 
and execute and enforce them according to their own sweet 
will and discretion. As commanders of the regular army and 



120 

the militia they direct this tremendous, trained physical power 
wherever and whenever they want it, in order to accomplish 
results desirable for themselves, for instance the intimidation 
and subjection of "riotous" laborers, or the creation of new 
colonial markets. As owners of the press, as patrons of the 
pulpit, as endowers of universities, and as political bosses, they 
educate generation after generation in a way and manner fav- 
orable to their class interests. The exploiters of labor know 
very well that it is futile to try to draw a line between the 
economic and political domains of power and influence. They 
use their accumulated wealth for the acquirement of political 
power, and use this power for the purpose of increasing their 
wealth. Politics and economics cannot be divorced from each 
other in our time of modern industrialism and so-called "po- 
litical democracy" — every political leader will tell you this, 
if you happen to gain his confidence in a moment of frank- 
ness. 

If this is true in respect to the exploiters of labor, can it be 
otherwise in respect to the exploited laborer ? If politics proves 
to be the mightiest weapon, in the hands of the capitalists, 
would it not prove suicidal on the part of labor organizations 
to keep out of politics? "Politics are corrupt," claim the 
simon-pure trade unionists. Granted that this is true, we still 
ask these venerable advocates of non-resistance to political evil 
the following pertinent questions. Is the fact that a weapon 
is misused by some miscreants an argument against its rational 
and beneficial use ? Should we refuse the use of a sharp knife 
for cutting bread, because some criminal uses a sharp knife for 
cutting his victim's throat? Are not the exploited laborers 
committing an offense of omission in refusing to become a 
factor in politics, because the capitalist and his retainers are 
guilty of the crime of commission in using politics as a means 
of perpetuating and intensifying their dominion over labor ? 
But the "pure and simple" trade-unionists are ready with the 
retort that they are not objecting to the exercise of civic duties 
by the laborers as individuals, but as members of a labor or- 
ganization. The flimsiness of this sophistic, distinction with- 
out a difference is too obvious to need further elucidation. If 
the task of a labor organization consists in fighting for the in- 
terests of labor, and the best weapon in this struggle proves to 
be political action — why then in the name of common sense 
should not labor organizations as such enter into politics and 



121 

engage in the battle with capitalism, using its own weapon 
and standing on its own ground? The fear that differences 
in political views may lead to the disintegration of labor or- 
ganizations is ill considered and without foundation. Indeed 
it is nothing but a bugaboo to scare the timid and bewilder, 
the weak-minded. The average laborer at present knows very 
well, that he cannot expect anything from the state of which 
he is nominally a free citizen, nor from the middle class par- 
ties any thing except gross and vulgar flattery before election 
and neglect, and injustice, after election. If he still votes for 
the middle class parties it is because he is not aware of the 
existence of a great, honest, bonafide Socialistic political or- 
ganization. And it is the sacred duty of the trade union 
to lift and educate its members to a higher plane of aspira- 
tions than the mere selfish increase of wages and decrease 
of working hours of those of his fellow-toilers who happen 
to belong to his union. The sacred duty and high privilege 
of the trade unions consist in making their members not only 
better fed and better clad animals but in making them bet- 
ter, nobler men, more self-sacrificing citizens, true Socialists, 
who stand first and last for the broader interests of all toil- 
ing humanity as opposed to its oppressors and exploiters. 

But political action, far from being a menace to trade- 
unionism, is as a matter of fact its most reliable support. The 
real foundation of trade-unionism is skilled labor, as was the 
case with the guilds of the middle ages. The most successful 
unions are those whose craft demands the highest individual 
training, and it is hardest to organize unions among common 
laborers. The tendency of our modern industry is to do away 
as far as possible with the necessity for skill on the part of 
the laborers. In other words, the tendency of modern indus- 
trialism is in the direction of undermining the very founda- 
tion of trade-unionism. It is only by conscientious and syste- 
matic exercise of political action that the laborers may expect 
to battle successfully for their economic rights. 

So far we have spoken only of the honest bona-fide oppon- 
ents of political action on the part of trade unions. There is 
however a large number of so-called "labor leaders" who op- 
pose political action from purely selfish motives. Using their 
influence over their over-confident but not over-bright fellow- 
workers in the interest of some old party politician, they 
derive personal benefit from selling this influence k> the high- 



1l2 

est bidder. These men are traitors to the cause of their own 
class and are the first to raise their voice against political 
action. Honest workers should regard such protest with sus- 
picion and investigate the motives which prompt it. 



123 



XXVI. MAY DAY AM) W0RKING-CLAS3 HOLI- 
DAYS. 

It is rather remarkable thai social economy and socialistic 
literature pay so little attention to the problem of securing 
to the proletariat possibilities of employing the little leisure 
allotted to it in our age of wage slavery in a way and manner 
tending to raise the children of toil to a higher level of phy- 
sical and spiritual enjoyment and recreation. The sociologi- 
cal and educational value of holidays for the working class 
can hardly he overestimated. The real character of men is 
revealed more in the way and manner they employ their lei- 
sure than in their work and business occupation. In the 
shop, the factory, the office, any man in any position of life 
is to a great extent deprived, of the freedom of action and be- 
havior by the strict code of rules and regulations of the trade 
or profession in which he is engaged. This is especially true 
of proletarians, who are compelled to submit to an almost 
military discipline during their working hours. The rul- 
ing classes know that a Sunday spent in drunken riot, gamb- 
ling and dissipation is not likely to tend to make the working- 
man fit for his labors during the rest of the week. That is the 
reason, or one of the reasons, rather, why the labor employers 
and their handmaid, the institutional church, are so solicit- 
ous about Sunday rest for the working class. At the last 
Paris world's fair, among the numerous congresses that were 
held, one was exclusively devoted to the problem of insuring 
a strict observance of Sunday as a day of rest for the prole- 
tariat. The members of that congress were almost exclusive- 
ly clergymen and capitalists, people whose life is actually a 
continuous holiday. Xot one representative of the wage work- 
ers or their interests took part in the deliberations of that con- 
gress and very few of them, if any, knew that such a congress 
held its sessions at that time in Paris. 

Ft is time that the proletariat should emancipate it- 
self from the paternalistic care of the ruling classes. It is 
time that the actual creators of the wealth of nations 
should take control not only of the tools of production 
they work with, but also of their leisure and holidays in a 
class-conscious and rational way. The institutional churches 
would fain turn Sundays and all holidays into barren and 



124 

dreary days of praying and devotion to a supernatural being 
whose sole agents and representatives they pretend to be ; they 
would fain close on Sundays and holidays all places of amuse- 
ment, recreation and instructive pastimes, as theaters, lec- 
ture rooms, libraries and museums. By these means they 
would deprive the working class of the only possibility of 
taking advantage of these institutions. A puritanic Sunday 
and holiday may be a good thing for the ruling classes, but 
it is a powerful agency in the hands of the institutional church 
for the spiritual impoverishment and debasement of the work- 
ing classes in the interests of the social economic parasites of 
our industrial age. 

The wage workers need strictly enforced Sunday and holi- 
day laws more than any other class of people but not the Sun- 
days and holidays of puritan times. The proletariat 
needs Sundays and holidays conducive to physical rest 
and recreation, to spiritual elevation, to intellectual en- 
richment, to development and gratification of artistic 
tastes and inclinations, to the consciousness of the higher 
nature and worth of the human race as a whole. Such 
Sundays and holidays are incompatible with so-called 
church and legal or religious and state holidays. The 
religious and state holidays do not appeal any more 
to the imagination and inner feeling of modern proletarians. 

The holidays of the wage workers should be taken from the 
historical events, affecting the fate of that class, from the an- 
nals of the struggle, conscious or unconscious, of that class 
for its emancipation from the thraldom of exploitation -by 
the ruling classes. Such holidays would tend to develop a 
spirit of brotherhood and solidarity among workingmen and 
enlighten them as to the great historical mission of their 
class, a mission greater and holier than any mission of any 
other class in any time in the memory of men. Such holidays 
would tend to spiritualize and ennoble the proletariat and to 
discipline it into a conscious host of workers in the cause of 
a higher civilization, founded on the recognition of the soli- 
darity of the interests of all the actual producers of national 
wealth on the globe irrespective of age, sex, race and color. 

Such an international proletarian holiday is the May day 
observed in all civilized countries of the worid. It is a day set 
for the express purpose of manifesting this solidarity of in- 
terests. On this day the laborer of France extends his hand 



125 

to the workmen of Germany, the American Rrage worker to 
his brother in Spain, the [ndian rial), the Chinese coolie, the 
Russian mushik. On this day the polyglot slaves and semi- 
slaves of the world try to make themselves understood by eaeli 
other in the international language of human hrotherhood 
and sisterhood. The persecuted, the downtrodden, the ex- 
ploited, the disinherited of all elimes and lands lighten their 
burden by the consciousness, that their sufferings and sacri- 
fices are shared by others, that the recognition of the superior- 
ity of right, justice and reason over might, privileges and 
superstition is growing every day stronger and stronger, that 
the hour is near when a new civilization of solidarity and co- 
operation will be built on the ruins of the old civilization 
of strife and competition. 

On May day all the roaring waves of the mighty ocean, all 
the high mountains of the continents are not able to stifle and 
silence the tide of warm human sympathy between fellow suf- 
ferers from unjust and irrational social economic conditions. 
Socialism, the great international movement in the interest 
of social economic justice, indorses heartily the celebration of 
May day, not only as a means of propaganda of its ideas and 
ideals, but as an attempt to unite the proletarians of all na- 
tions in one harmonious concert of mutual love and helpful- 
ness. Socialism has especial reason to celebrate this day in 
the United States, where all kinds of political and social eco- 
nomic superstitions, unchecked individualistic aspirations and 
the reckless spirit of "let alone" are so dominant; where com- 
mercialism and money-making cyncism reach the degree of a 
national vice. In a country so typically capitalistic as the 
United States there is more need to emphasize the solidarity 
of proletarian's interests than anywhere else. The Socialists 
of America celebrate May day as the real international prole- 
tarian holiday, a holiday not prescribed by the institutional 
church of the official state, not a holiday imposted upon the 
laboring classes by the ruling classes, but as a genuine work- 
men's rationalistic and class-conscious holiday, as a precursor 
of the many holidays in the future calendar of the proletariat. 



126 



XXVII. THE CAPITALIST PRESS. 

The action of mind on mind, by the means of articulated 
sounds called language, belongs to the most subtle distinctions 
between man and animal. The degree of development of the 
language of a given human group is justly considered as a 
true standard of the stage of culture and civilization attained 
by it. Language — as a means of expressing desires, thoughts 
and ideas — developed along with the development of de- 
sires, thoughts and ideas, is subjected to the same natural 
laws as any other manifestation of the human mind. A 
savage or degenerate man cannot have the desires, thoughts 
and ideas of highly cultured and noble types of humanity; 
hence the difference in their vocabulary, their language. 
Noble aspirations, deep thoughts and high ideals will neces- 
sarily be expressed in noble, deep and refined language. The 
reverence with which we meet noble aspirations, deep thought 
and high ideals is naturally transplanted to the form and 
shape they are clothed in — to the language. This explains 
the reverence and awe with which the ancients considered 
the so-called sacred books, or bibles ; the reverence and awe 
with which the simple-minded man of the people still sin- 
cerely regards the Hebrew Bible. Only superficial spirits and 
men without principles may scoff at this reverence and awe. 
Thoughtful people, on the contrary, will look upon this fact 
as a sign of healthy moral condition and try to transfer this 
reverence to a more worthy subject, from the myths and super- 
stitions of a half barbaric age to the enlightened philosophy of 
life, of an age of science and art. 

It was always a source of deep gratification to the writer of 
these lines to watch the implicit faith in printed matter ex- 
pressed with touching childish simplicity, by Russian pea- 
sants for instance, when he considered the contempt with 
which every educated and cultured man is compelled to feel 
and entertain toward the prostituted press of our shameless, 
profane and frivolous mercantile civilization. And it occurred 
to him at such moments that the ignorant peasant, this simple 
child of a simple people, is, after all, better off morally and 
even mentally than the blase inhabitant of a large metropolis, 
accustomed to swallow the filth and poison of a thoroughly 
degraded daily press as a source of information about what 



127 

is going on in the beautiful world that is turned into hell by 
irrational, unjust and brutalising social institutions. These in- 
stitutions founded on the inhuman principles of gross materi- 
alism, of exploitation of man by man, of parasitism on one side 
an 1 degrading slavish ioil on the other; of brute force on 
one side and mute subject ion. on the other, breed low aspira- 
tions, shallow thought, vulgar taste and coarse ideas in the 
ruling and ruled class alike. And this leads to a lowered 
moral and mental currency of the press, that always was and 
will he a true image of the actual spiritual condition of its 
age. Was and will be, we said. It would be, however, an in- 
justice to say without any qualification that the press of the 
present age actually represents a true image of the spiritual 
life of our time. In manv instances the reverse of it 
is the fact; it represents its distorted image, its hideous 
caricature. 

The incongruity between actual conditions and its reflection 
in the press is a direct result of the deep-rooted contradictions 
and contrasts of our age. The marvelous achievements in the 
field of applied sciences, in the domain of purely technical 
progress, form a deep contrast with the stagnation and partial 
regress in social and political institutions of the modern state. 
The comparatively highly developed modes of production and 
distribution of material wealth are entirely out of harmony 
with the profit and wage system. Socialized production and 
competition produced a small class of drones of society with 
so-called vested rights to fabulous treasures on one side, and a 
vast number of people devoid of all property, depending on 
their ability to work and chances of finding opportunity to 
sell it to the highest bidder on the market for a living — the 
proletariat — on the other. The progress in production and 
distribution has raised the standard of life of the masses of the 
people, and has at the same time increased their dissatis- 
faction and unrest. 

The world may be considered as growing better or worse by 
idle philosophers, acording to their standpoint, but the people 
are not growing any happier, that is certain. Our ruling phil- 
osophy of life is thoroughly individualistic, while our material 
progress is due to the enhanced growth of socialization in in- 
dustrial and commercial activity. These and many other con- 
tradictions, contrasts and incongruities of our age lead inevit- 
ably not only to deterioration of our spiritual life, to cynicism, 



128 

frivolity and absence of all principles except that of boundless 
egotism, it leads to conventional lies, to hypocrisy, to cant, to 
double-facedness and insincerity. Language, instead of being 
a true expression of the human mind, is largely a means of 
misrepresenting it. Hypocrisy, however, is the tribute paid 
by vice to virtue, and is, therefore, to be taken as an encour- 
aging sign of a better, truer, nobler future. "The times are 
ripe and rotten ripe for change," and they would change rap- 
idly if two factors w r ould not co-operate in delaying this 
change for the better. 

One of these factors is the indolence and ignorance of the 
masses, w T ho, like children when feeling uncomfortable, in- 
dulge in a hearty and lusty cry without being able to give 
themselves an intelligent account of what ails them. The 
other is the conscious endeavor on the part of the ruling classes 
to perpetuate their power. Armed with knowledge and physi- 
cal power, utilizing all the latest results of science and backed 
by carefully trained, drilled and equipped armies, the 
ruling classes recognize the supreme importance of keep- 
ing the exploited and disinherited masses in dense ignorance 
of their real social condition, of demoralizing them by sensa- 
tionalism, of obscuring their spiritual vision by petrified 
"churchianity," of flattering their vanity with vulgar* 
demogogic tricks, of feeding their imagination with pictures 
of low life. The current press is, therefore, called by the 
ruling classes to do this ignominious work. Instead of trying 
to educate the people, to lead them in all walks of life, to tell 
them the truth about everything, to elevate their morals, to 
ennoble their ideals, they follow the policy of perverting truth, 
of catering to the lowest instincts of the masses, of dishing 
out before them with especial relish in minutest detail descrip- 
tions of crime, vice and degradation. The private life, acts 
and amusements of the mighty and rich are described in order 
to dazzle the eves of the thoughtless multitude. Common 
gossip, wire-pulling for some dishonest speculation on the 
stock exchange, deliberate prevarications and misrepresenta- 
tions in the interests of some political clique or party, black- 
mail and calumny of. opponents — are considered as perfectly 
legitimate in our current press. Fools are represented as sages, 
pretentious charlatans as eminent specialists, salaried back- 
yard politicians as statesmen, the purposeless jaunts of 



superficial and superfluous office-holders as earnest journeys 
in the interests of the commonwealth. 

The most typical representation of our daily press is the 

Sunday edition of our large dailies. What is a Sunday edi- 
tion oi a "great daily" paper? Dear reader! You surely 
watched your seryant, housekeeper or landlady sweep your 
room or rooms carefully every day, gather the heap of rub- 
bish and throw it out. This heap of rubbish is a symbol 
of our daily press. The same servant, housekeeper or land- 
lady does her sweeping with special care some one par- 
ticular day in the week, usually Saturday. That heap of rub- 
bish is comparatively larger on that special day of houseclean- 
ing. Sunday edition of a daily paper is nothing else but a 
public housecleaning, or rather the result of a thorough 
weekly housecleaning — an extraordinary huge heap of rubbish. 
Sensations, wholesale or retail murder, political lies, crimes 
against decency, suicides, hold-ups, would-be scientific notes 
written by a pseudo-scientist, coarse jokes, vulgar pictures, 
stories calculated to gratify the coarse taste of the reader, 
the senseless babble and self-adulation of prize fighters — this 
is "the stuff " that fills the paper calculated to amuse and edify 
you. And the pity of it is that this "stuff" is often the 
only mental food of many a workingman or small trader. 

The mercantile and capitalistic system maintains a press 
that serves best its purposes — that is natural. But the more 
urgently is felt the necessity of a decent, truthful, high- 
minded, humanitarian great daily paper, that would fearlessly 
expose all the crimes and vices of our social system and hold 
before the eyes of the public the noble ideals of Socialism. 
The tendency to start Socialistic papers in all nooks 
and corners of the United States is a sign of the healthy 
growth of Socialism, but a professional Socialistic press can- 
not reach the people as well as a daily newspaper, and can- 
not have its influence. This splitting of forces is rather 
to be regretted, as one central Socialistic organ would have 
the advantage of material, just is well as moral and mental 
force. And as capitalism can be abolished and the co-opera- 
tive commonwealth can be established only by a Socialistically 
enlightened proletariat, and as the daily press is one of the 
most powerful, if not the most powerful, agent shaping the 
public opinion, public sentiment and public conscience the 



180 

need of a Socialistic press, at the same time popular and in- 
structive, newsy and high-minded, fascinating but not sensa- 
tionaL truthful and fair, is a pious desire of all thoughtful 
Socialists. 



131 



XXVIII. MODERN PHILISTINISM. 

Do you know what element of the population of the 
civilized countries is in modern times the most stubborn 
and persistent opponent of social economic progress? Do you 

know what class is the staunchest supporter of the old, delapi- 
dated institutions and tries to stem the mighty tide of the on- 
coming social revolution? Do you think those enemies of 
progress and friends of stagnation are the ignorant, the lowly, 
the scum and dregs of society? By no means. They are the 
Philistines, belonging to the "better" and "best" class of socie- 
ty. If 1 were a painter 1 would impersonate the Philistine as 
a small burgher in a night-cap, dressing-gown and slippers. 
Indeed, the type of a Philistine is so widely predominant in 
the middle class that it appears to an extent characteristic of 
the entire class. Even the most active and shrewd business 
man of our hustling and bustling times turns into a Philistine 
once he leaves his shop, factory or office. If he does not put 
on actually a night-cap, dressing-gown and slippers as soon as 
he leaves his business place, he does it spiritually, so to say. 
There are, of course, a variety of undertypes of a Philistine, 
but they all have certain general features and family likeness. 
What are, then, the characteristic features of this type of 
our middle class? In the first instance the Philistine is a 
pronounced individualist, in the most elementary sense of the 
word. His spiritual horizon is extremely limited by indol- 
ence, almost morbid selfishness and prejudice. All his life is 
devoted to pursuits calculated to promote his own petty per- 
sonal interests. A Philistine may happen to inherit from 
his parents a kind heart. In that case he may be a member 
of the Society for the Protection of Dumb Animals. He will, 
however, not move a finger for the protection of human chil- 
dren and frail women against the brutalizing influences of the 
profit system in general and capitalism in particular. The 
proletariat has actually to turn into a herd of dumb animals 
in order to deserve the compassion and gracious protection 
of the "humane" Philistine. Or a Philistine may engage, in a 
passive way, of course, in charity, degrading the giver and the 
receiver simultaneously. He will try to help the "deserving" 
poor. The material need of. a few who happen to come to his 
attention does not suggest to his dull mind the general prob- 



132 

lent of poverty, its causes and its effects on victims and society 
at large. The idea and conception of social-economic justice 
does not find room enough in the Philistine's brain. Poor 
people should not insist upon rights according to Philistine 
social philosophy, but should be humble like Uriah Heap in 
order to be classed with the deserving. A Philistine may be a 
member of some church and even go to the extent of teach- 
ing in a Sunday school or attending revival meetings. He 
loves his precious self so dearly that he is not satisfied 
with insuring for himself a comfortable life here on earth, 
but is inclined to procure for his soul a snug corner in the 
other world. The humanitarian, moral side of the world reli- 
gions, with its obligations towards society at large and sacri- 
fices of interests and comforts, is a sealed letter to the Philis- 
tine. The latter knows that the proletariat does not feel at 
home in churches and sees in it a sign of degradation of the 
plain people, instead of blaming the church for losing its hold 
on the plain people. Not that the Philistine is necessarily 
a bigoted fanatic of religion in general. A Philistine may 
be an infidel occasionally, and yet view with, alarm the irreli- 
giosity of the plain people. According to the conception of 
Philistines, religion is the only thing that keeps the common 
people from committing all kinds of crime. In case a Philis- 
tine happens to be an infidel, he may be a member of an ethical 
culture society and profess crude animal evolutionism with the 
struggle for existence, survival of the fittest and other ill- 
digested half-truths, which, when applied by them to social- 
economic affairs, mean downright anarchistic barbarity and 
brutal, imbecile Nletscheism. The most characteristic features 
of Philistines are, however, not their crude theories about state 
or society, but their utter indifference to social-economic prob- 
lems. 

A Philistine may in a general way be interested in politics, 
etc. He will, however, stay away from the polls when the 
weather is not especially inviting, or vote against his convic- 
tions in order not to "lose his vote." The Philistine may be 
disgusted with the corruption of politicians, but does not rea- 
lize that politics and politicians are the result of his own cri- 
minal indifference to public affairs. Some Philistines are quite 
radical in their views, well read and informed on political, 
economic and sociological lines. Their moral cowardice, the 
lack of courage of their convictions, paralyzes their latent use- 



1. >.> 

fulness. Leading themselves a life of sordid selfishness, the 
Philistines decry every disinterested, public-spirited man as a 

crank. Philistinism is certainly a social malady, a moral 
sickness of deep and far-reaching significance. It is nothing 

but Philistinism that causes people to abstain from the saered 
duty of exercising their civic prerogatives. It is Philistinism 
that leaves the administration of all public affairs in the hands 
of incompetent and dishonest professional drones of society — 
politicians. It is Philistinism that diverts the best forces of 
the nation from public service to private pursuits. It is 
Philistinism that chills and kills generous aspirations for pub- 
lic weal as soon as it is kindled in the breast of a youth. Phil- 
istinism is responsible for the sordid materialistic tendencies 
of our times, for low aspirations and absence of ideals in social 
life, for depriving modern life of the very highest and noblest 
motives. 

Socialists must look upon Philistinism as its deadliest 
enemy and fight it with all its might. And Philistin- 
ism is not a formidable enemy, after all, if we take into 
consideration that it is a merely negative phenomenon, a kind 
of a hypnotic condition of a considerable part of society. Let 
us first of all shake off from ourselves all Philistinism ; arouse 
in ourselves and then instill in others a passion for social- 
economic justice, the righteousness of modern times. What 
we need is not a purely intellectual recognition of our ideals, 
aims and aspirations only, but a deep, emotional power, a 
world-saving enthusiasm, like that experienced at the dawn of 
Christianity and on the eve of the French revolution. We 
need at present more prophets than professors, more inspira- 
tion than cool reasoning. One great poet would do more 
for our movement than a hundred economists. 



134 



XXIX. POPULAR EDUCATION AS INFLUENCED 
BY CAPITALISM. 

The celebrated German leader of the Social-Derftocratic 
party, Comrade Bebel, said once: "In the last instance the 
solution of all social problems depends on popular education." 
Indeed the most powerful tool and weapon of the human kind 
is the intellect. Education is the process of perfecting this 
tool and weapon. As any other tool or weapon — the intellect 
may be used for the good and advantage of society or misused 
for the purpose of furthering apparent individual 
or class interests to the detriment of society. Educa- 
tion, or rather instruction, does not necessarily improve 
morals, does not insure against selfishness and other vices of 
individual hypertrophy. And a highly educated rogue is of 
course a thousand times more dangerous to society than a 
stupid ignoramus. There is therefore always an abundance 
of social abuses in a country where education is monopolized 
by a few, while the nation at large is buried in dense ignor- 
ance. And the stronger numerically the class of the educated 
in comparison with the "great unwashed" mass of the popu- 
lation, the greater and deeper the social abuses are likely to be. 
That ratio between the educated and ignorant of any epoch 
or country may justly be considered as an indicator of the ex- 
tent and degree of social abuses. It is so easy for the intel- 
lectually superior to exploit the ignorant and the temptation 
is so powerful that only exceptionally high-minded and gener- 
ous individuals will abstain from doing it or go to the, extent 
of helping the weak in his uneven struggle. 

For the thoughtful student and observer of national life, 
it is not the education of individuals and classes, but the 
instruction of the masses, that has the highest value. Develop 
the intellect of the "great unwashed" if you wish to eliminate 
or at least lessen the possibility of its being exploited by the 
crafty and unscrupulous few, forming the so-called "higher 
class." It is a notorious fact that the ruling individuals 
(kings, czars, popes) and classes (aristocracy, clergy and 4 plu- 
tocracy) were and are openly or at heart, opposed to the men- 
tal elevation of the masses exploited by them. Parasites 
thrive best in darkness. 

It is obviously of the highest importance to ascertain the 



135 

degree of mental instruction actually enjoyed by the people at 
large by the so-called "lower classes." Unfortunately the 
statistical data on this subject are very incomplete, as far as 
the United States is concerned. And yet attempts have been 
made to generalize these statistical data — among others by my 
friend, the sociologist, Dr. Daniel Folkmar. Here are some of 
them relating to Chicago and Milwaukee: 

Of all the children that enter the public schools of the two 
named cities. 

1. About one-third go no further than the first grade. 

2. About one-half go no further than the second grade. 

3. About two-thirds go no further than the third grade. 

4. About three-fourths go no further than the fourth 
grade. 

5. About nine-tenths go half way only through the twelve 
grades. 

6. About ninety-seven in every hundred drop out before 
reaching the high school. 

7. Only three in every thousand finish the entire course, 
or more exactly the following per cents drop out at each grade : 

Gradel, 32 per cent; 2, 51; 3, 66; 4, 78; 5, 86; 6, 92; 7. 
95; 8, 97; 9, 98.6; 10, 99.3; 11, 99.7. 

Another line of argument leads to the conclusion that the 
schooling of the average pupil does not embrace more than 
three grades. If these numbers are not appalling I do not 
know what is ! The self-complacent average American citizen, 
is justly proud of the public school system, but he little knows 
to what extent the people are able to take advantage of it. 
But maybe Chicago and Milwaukee form an exception as to 
the duration of school attendance ? Ex-State Superintendent 
C. L. T. Smart of Ohio states that only about 3 per cent of 
the pupils enrolled in the public schools ever enter, and from 
them less than 1 per cent graduate ; 50 per cent of the youth 
enrolled in the public schools of the state do not attend school 
more than four years; 75 per cent stop attending school 
before entering the eighth year or grade, and 97 per cent do 
not attend beyond the eighth year. Dr. Wm. T. Harris, 
United States Commissioner of education, says in his report 
of the committee of fifteen : "The average number of pupils 
of the St. Louis schools in the lowest three years of the 
course was about 72 per cent of the entire number enrolled. 
Nearly three fourths of all the pupils of the public schools 



136 

are in the studies of the first three years or in primary studies. 
Six-sevenths of the population of the United States on arriv- 
ing at the proper age for the secondary education never re- 
ceive it. Thirty out of thirty-one fail to receive higher educa- 
tion upon arriving at the proper age. Obviously the data 
of Milwaukee and Chicago are typical for the United States 
in general. The question now arises — what is the main cause 
of this remarkably short duration of school attendance ? Mr. 
C. L. T. Smart says: "A majority of the patrons of the pub- 
lic schools cannot do without the labor of their children and 
therefore cannot give them time to attend school longer." 
Prof. D. Folkmar states: "I answer without hesitation that 
the chief factors are economic conditions. Too many either 
cannot support their children as they desire, or cannot spare 
them through a longer period of schooling." 

The Moloch of Capitalism wants to perpetuate itself by the 
shameful system of child labor keeping the industrial pro- 
letariats in ignorance. The free public school proves to be 
a snare and delusion for the proletarian. And the remedies ? 
Many advocate compulsory education laws. But is not then 
the state obliged to take care of the children during their 
schooling; feed, dress and lodge them if their parents are un- 
able to do it? Is not the state in duty bound to make the 
free public school system "really free and public ?" But that 
would be Socialism pure and simple. And what would the 
capitalistic Mrs. Grundy say to it ? 



r.. 



XXX. OUB MUNICIPAL POLICY. 

The founders of the republic of the United States declared 
for political freedom. Since the birth of our nation, however, 
a revolution in industry lias taken place. Formerly hand or 
individual labor produced the necessities of life. At present 
machine labor and socialized production displace individual 
or hand labor. While in former times it was the imperative 
duty of government to protect the individual in the posses- 
sion of property he had produced, at present, a new duty 
developes upon the state, the duty to protect the whole 
body of working people against the encroachments of the 
owners of the means of production, and distribution, 
the capitalistic class. Thus it develops that the bat- 
tle for human rights against so-called vested rights, 
rights of individual property against the rights of men, has 
become a battle to determine which form of government we 
shall have in the future — semi-anarchic plutocracy or Social 
Democracy. 

In 1890 three hundreths of 1 per cent of the nation held 
20 per cent, of the nation's wealth. Eight and ninety- 
seven hundredths per cent, of the population held 51 
per cent, of the wealth. The middle class, consisting of 
28 per cent of the population, held 20 per cent of the wealth. 
The proletariat consisted of two distinct categories, the com- 
arativelv well-to-do, upper strata comprising 11 per cent of the 
population, held 4 per cent of the wealth. The other — the 
poor class, the sub-strata of the proletariat — consisting of 
52 per cent of the population, held but 5 per cent of the 
national wealth. This 5 per cent includes personal unproduc- 
tive property of all kinds. The nation is very rich as a whole, 
but its riches belong to the vested rights as individual prop- 
erty to a very small minority of exploiters of human toil. 

Dr. C. B. Spahr says: "Less than half the families in 
America are property-less (proletarians), seven-eights of the 
families hold but one-eighth of the national wealth, 
while 1 per cent of the families hold more (wealth) than 
the remaining ninety-nine." These figures prove that by the 
economic development of modern society this nation has out- 
grown the old system of government and must modify it to 
correspond to the new conditions. Political rights without 



138 

economic freedom turn into a snare and a delusion. Modern 
evolutionary Socialism is neither Utopian Socialism, that does 
not take into consideration the facts of human nature and the 
actual conditions now prevailing, nor state Socialism, that 
would fain turn the state into a gigantic capitalistic monop- 
oly, the operation of which could only result in the continued 
enslavement of the proletariat. Modern Socialism works for 
political freedom and industrial democracy, based on eco- 
nomic association and insuring individual liberty. The Social- 
ist movement of America is essentially and eminently 
an evolutionary movement. In the United States the con- 
quest of public power by the dispossessed class cannot be the 
result of the instantaneous overturning of the present sys- 
tem. It must be the result of persistent and conscious effort, 
and the work of proletarian organization, on the economic 
and political field, of the physical and moral regener- 
acy of the laboring class. Charity begins at home. And 
justice, social economic justice, championed by the Social- 
ists of America, must be established first of all in our munic- 
ipalities and local legislative and executive public institu- 
tions. There is, however, a vast distinction between Social- 
istic methods of municipal administration and the municipal 
ownership suggested and sought for by the two old political 
or new middle-class reform parties, who clamor for city con- 
trol and ownership for the purposes of cheapening illumni- 
nating gas, reducing street car fares, using the large dividends 
and profits accruing from these enterprises to lighten taxa- 
tion, etc. Socialism wants to use the municipal administra- 
tion as a means to inaugurate and achieve a magnificent sys- 
tem of social-economic improvements, to provide employ- 
ment for the unemployed under conditions impossible under 
the existing order of affairs, to insure shorter hours and 
better remuneration to the laboring class and generally to 
raise the standard of life of all engaged in public service. The 
middle-class reformers clamor for a business-like adminis- 
tration, that means an administration of exploitation of the 
proletariat in favor of the capitalist class. Socialism 
wants immediate economic improvement of the condition of 
the toilers and producers of wealth, who are, under the pres- 
ent system, deprived of the greater part of their earnings. 

By taking hold of municipalities, the Socialists propose to 
enrich the city treasuries, to relieve the congestion of the 



139 

labor market, to insure the children of the poor, school edu- 
cation, to turn the different branches of municipal adminis- 
tration into effective channels of direct usefulness to the peo- 
ple, to improve the sanitary conditions of the parts of the 
cities that need it most, the quarters inhabited by the work- 
ing class. The municipal platforms of the Socialistic organ- 
izations all over the United States ought to strike at the root 
of municipal evils — the rule of the old corrupt political par- 
ties, backed up by the money power — the rule in the interest 
of the semi-criminal and exploiting classes. These platforms 
ought to be drawn on local lines, to meet local conditions, not 
leaving, however, out of consideration the general principles 
and aims to be attained by Modern Socialism, the liberation 
of the wage slave from the capitalistic servitude and degrada- 
tion of the drudges of industry incident thereto. 

It is true that municipal elections offer only partial op- 
portunities for the execution of our general program ; but the 
opportunities are, nevertheless, immense. Let us prove to the 
nation at large that we are willing and able to manage local 
affairs to the best interest of the people — the tillers of the 
ground and toilers of the factories — and the conquest of the 
national administration will be only a question of time. It 
is, of course, impossible to give a general gutline of local 
municipal programs for a country so vast and variegated as 
the United States. The following 'outline is therefore to 
be considered as tentative and suggestive only : 

1. Such changes and amendments in the state laws and city 
charter as may be necessary to enable the people to give prac- 
tical effect to a municipal administration in accordance with 
the objects and principles of International Socialism. 

?. Public construction, ownership and operation of all sub- 
ways and underground conduits. 

3. Public ownership and operation of all street railways, gas 
and electric-lighting and power plants, telephones and other 
public utilities, not for profit, but to the best advantage of 
the consumers. 

4. Public construction, ownership and maintenance of 
modern homes for workingmen on land acquired, or to be, 
when necessary, acquired by the municipality, to relieve over- 
crowding and provide healthful environments for the people. 

3. Public construction, ownership and maintenance of mu- 



140 

nicipal hospitals, commodious and of modern equipment, free 
dispensaries and homes for the aged. 

6. Obligatory life and accident insurance for the aid of 
those who depend on their work for a living, and for old age 
pensions. 

7. Public bath houses, natatoriums, playgrounds, gymna- 
siums and other similar sanitary and hygienic institutions for 
the people. 

8. The establishment of municipal schools of industrial 
training, useful and fine arts. 

9. All educational facilities to be furnished free to ail chil- 
dren of the community, and when necessary, clothing and 
food. 

10. Free legal and medical advice. 

11. Abolition of private contract system on public work. 

12. Strict civil service rules and merit system of promotion 
in all departments of public service without exception. 



141 

XXXI. WHAT SHALL BE DONE WITH THE MAN 
WITH THE HOE? 

What shall be done with the man with the hoe ? Ask a simon- 
pure Socialist, an orthodox ultra Marxist, who is more of a 
Marxist than Marx himself, what shall be done with the indus- 
trial proletariat. He will tell you all about it as a bright and 
industrious high school boy, who learned his lesson by heart. 
He will relate to you the economic theory on which the great 
teacher of the gospel of modern Socialism built the magnifi- 
cent edifice of evolutionary social-economics, in a somewhat 
dogmatic manner. He will emphasize to you the class struggle 
and class consciousness of the industrial proletariat, the crisis 
theory and the "inevitableness" of the impending collapse of 
the entire capitalistic system, owing to the ever-increasing 
concentration of capital on one side, and the gradual and cer- 
tain impoverishment of the masses on the other. Das Kapital 
is his Bible, the more sacred and infallible, the less he under- 
stands it. As the Mohammedan conjurer of Alexandria re- 
garded the Koran, he considers Das Kapital as the book of 
books. He would rather burn all the famous libraries of the 
world than lose one iota of Das Kapital. If a book contains 
a truth it must be only a repetition of it, taken from the Koran 
(viz., Das Kapital). Else it is worthless, because the truth 
about economic conditions was revealed for all eternity in Das 
Kapital and nothing can be either added or taken from it 
witnout impairing or perverting the truth itself. 

Das Kapital deals exclusively with modern indus- 
trial conditions, their causes and effects. To con- 
clude from this fact that the interest of the 
sub-industrial rural proletariat were not near to 
the heart of Karl Marx, the Darwin of social-economics and 
great lover of human kind, means to insult the sacred memory 
of his name. As with all great intellects, the mind of Karl 
Marx had its limitations. And Marx himself, as all great 
thinkers, knew its limitations. He knew that it requires more 
than a lifetime to accomplish, even imperfectly, the gigantic 
task of introducing truly scientific and rational evolutionary 
methods in the study of the past and present of human 
society in one of its phases. Marx knew that to undertake 
more would be identical with accomplishing nothing. He 
knew the strength and economy of the concentration of the 



142 

mind on one particular field of research and considered the 
tendency of mental mediocrities to do it all just as silly as 
their pretense of knowing it all. Marx did not treat as ex- 
tensively in his classical work the sub-industrial strata of the 
proletariat, the rural proletariat as he did the industrial pro- 
letariat, simply because it happened to be outside of his partic- 
ular field of research. That great iconclasts and critics are 
turned by the unreasoning crowd of their followers into idols 
and infallible popes of dogmatized petrified creeds is an irony 
of fate. 

This is precisely the case with Marx, and his orthodox fol- 
lowers. Ask an orthodox Marxist what shall be done with the 
man with the hoe, the rural proletariat. And you will get 
the rather startling reply: "This is none of our business." So- 
cialists are interested in the fate of the industrial proletariat, 
but not in any other class. The man with the empty dinner 
pail and hammer in his hand is the subject of constant solici- 
tude of the simon-pure Socialist; but the man with the hoe 
is a stranger to him. Cranks and fanatics always move in 
abstractions. The proletarian is to them a certain economic 
category, not a living, suffering, reasoning being with vices 
and virtues, noble and mean traits of character, animal appe- 
tites and idealistic aspirations. Cranks and fanatics are 
never moved by deep humanitarian sympathy with the suffer- 
ings and privations of their fellowmen, but by some fixed idea 
or craze. The man with the hoe is just as human as 
the man with the empty dinner pail or hammer in 
his hand. They both suffer the pangs of hunger 
and thirst ; they both feel tired when overworked, they both 
feel the inclemency of the weather when poorly housed 
and dressed, they both feel the degradation of slave-like ex- 
istence with its insecurity of daily bread for themselves and 
their families, they both yearn after the attachments of a 
warm human heart beating in unison with theirs, they both 
suffer when compelled to see their dear ones, — their parents, 
brothers, sisters and children, — deprived of the necessities and 
luxuries of life, they both are in need of salvation from 
wicked and cruel social-economic conditions, they both scorn 
degrading charity and demand simple justice. The simon- 
pure Socialist, however, draws a line of demarkation between 
the industrial and rural proletarian, and declares the last as 
unworthy of his attention. Why ? Because the man with the 



143; 

hoe belongs to another economic category than the man with 

the hammer, because Karl Marx wrote books about the last, 

and did not have time to write books about the other. 

The folly of a negative attitude towards the rural proleta- 
riat on the part of modern Socialism is recognized in Germany 
by such high authorities as the best interpreter of Marx — 
Kautsky, who lately devoted considerable attention to a far- 
mer's platform on Social Democratic principles. But when 
some leading spirits in the S. D. P. of America made an at- 
tempt to formulate a farmers' plank as ;mi integral part of the 
party platform the howling dervishes of simon-pure Socialism 
in and outside the S. I). P. raised such a noise that the plan 
was dropped at its very inception. According to the theories 
of our native simon-purists of Socialism, American farmers 
are not proletarians in the mathematical sense of the term, 
because they own a patch of arid land and a few agricultural 
implements, even in case this land is heavily mortgaged and 
the implements not worth more than scrap-iron. Further- 
more, agricultural products grow on the soil under sunn^ 
skies, instead of being manufactured in the most fitting and 
scientific way by means of expensive and complicated ma- 
chinery, with the aid of division of labor w r ithin the walls of 
a dingy and noisy factory. If it w r ere practicable to put in the 
seeds of cucumbers in one part of a self-acting machine in 
order to draw jars of pickles from the others, it would be a 
different proposition. According to the maxims of native, 
so-called, scientific Socialism, all the land must be monop- 
olized legally by a few capitalists, all the farms must be 
turned into bonanzas and the farmers work for w r ages in order 
to deserve the attention of revolutionary Socialists. The 
American farmers, as they are at present, may starve, their 
families deteriorate, their labor products be expropriated by 
stock exchange and board of trade gambling, without any det- 
riment to the real proletariat, the man with the hammer. The 
American farmer belongs to a different economic category, 
to the middle class. And simon-pure Socialism long ago rung 
the death knell and made all necessary preparation for the 
funeral of the middle class. That the middle class and small 
farmers stubbornly refuse to die is, however, their own fault 
and not that of their undertakers, the ultra-orthodox Marx- 
ists. Let the small farmers as such, be crucified by agrarian 
capitalism and be resurrected as mathematical proletarians 



144 

after the approved scientific method devised by the simon- 
pure Socialists and the last will take good care of the first. 
Who will dare to laugh at this criminal folly ! 

Fortunately, there is a Modern Socialist movement in 
America, a movement broad and humanitarian enough to 
embrace in its folds the tillers of the soil as well as the toilers 
of the factory, a movement of social-economic justice to all 
who produce and labor for the common weal of the nation, 
without hair-splitting as to mathematical and economic cat- 
egories of the proletarians. It will stand or fall as the cham- 
pion of the cause of all those who are exploited by the para- 
sites of society. The Modern Socialist movement of America 
will not lose time in fruitless mental gymnastics, artificial 
classifications and labeling of economic sub-species, but 
work out in the near future special planks for its general 
political platform, designed to alleviate immediately the eco- 
nomic abnormities of our farming population. The hands 
of the man with the hammer and the man with the hoe will 
be clasped in token of brotherly co-operation in the struggle 
against their common enemy — the present profit and com- 
petitive system and in the reconstruction of society at large 
on the basis of Socialistic ideals and ideas. 



145 



XXXir. STATE INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE AND OLD 
AGE PENSIONS. 

The labor problem occupies a conspicuous place in the pub- 
lic mind of our time. The insecurity of the economic condi- 
tion of the wage worker is undoubtedly one of the principal 
causes of the prominence given to the discussion of social- 
economic conditions and theories by all public-spirited mem- 
bers of society. The prevalent system of production not only 
caused this insecurity, but shows a tendency to increase it in 
the future in direct proportion to the ever-progressing per- 
fection of the system itself. The alienation of the tools of 
production and raw materials necessary for production from 
the producer — the modern wage worker — resulted in the 
gradual but inevitable shifting of the point of gravity of pro- 
duction from the producer — the living, thinking and feeling 
laborer to his dead tools, to his dead raw materials and their 
legal possessor — the capitalist. Commodities or wares are pro- 
duced not for consumption, but for gain and profit. The 
ethical moment in production, the satisfaction of human 
needs, is entirely lost sight of and economic anarchy reigns 
supreme. In the insane scramble for profit, human labor is 
degraded to the role of a mere commodity and subjected to all 
the indignities arising from the chaotic fluctuations of sup- 
ply and demand. 

The laborer divorced from his tools is compelled to beg the 
man having vested rights in these tools for a chance to work, 
to be graciously allowed to create a surplus value for one 
w T ho has the tools in his possession, but does not labor. It is 
true, that the capitalist class cannot get along without the 
laboring class. Unfortunately, however, the laboring class 
does not present a solid front, as a social-economic unit to the 
organized force of its exploiters — the capitalists. The labor- 
ing class is rather split up into groups and individuals, not 
only not co-operating, but directly competing with each other 
for the privilege of selling their labor-power. The wage work- 
er is thus worse off not only than the black slave and even 
the beast of burden, for whose sustenance, as an individual 
and a species of animals, their owner had to provide for pater- 
nally. The wage worker is even worse off than the tools he 
works with. If a machine is out of shape, it is not thrown 



146 

out, but carefully fixed or modernized. The machine costs 
money to its owner, the capitalist. The living appendage to 
the machinery, the wage worker, is not the product of a ma- 
chine shop, but a child of Dame Nature, a son of man, and 
does not belong to the capitalist legally. The capitalist is 
not an idle dreamer, not a sentimentalist, but a business man, 
and from the point of view of gain and profit it would be 
the climax of folly to take care of a laborer (temporarily or 
permanently as the case may be) injured and disabled to work. 
Accidents, sickness, old age, do not exist for the lords of our 
modern machine production as far as laborers are concerned. 
The lords of modern machine production would fain prefer to 
have metallic automatons instead of frail human beings as 
appendages to their tools of production ; giants of mechanical 
force with the subtle intelligence of a human being, but with- 
out the troublesome organs of the human frame, without 
stomach and heart; monsters silent like the grave, obedient 
like carefully trained beasts of burden, with no desire for free- 
dom, no yearning for personal bliss and happiness. These 
automatons do not exist and may never be invented. 
The capitalists, however, manage to get* along nicely without 
them. The labor market is constantly overflowing with young 
and vigorous recruits ready and willing to pitch in whenever 
and wherever an old soldier of the industrial army wavers, 
weakens and falls in the economic battle. 

Accident, sickness and old age of wage workers are ignored 
by the captains of industry. Unfortunately, however, this 
ignoring is just as little effective in doing away with acci- 
dents, sickness and old age as Christian Science or Dowieism. 
Accidents will always happen, people will always grow. old if 
they live long enough, and. sickness will never be eradicated 
entirely from human life. Accidents and sickness ruin many 
a worker's family; old age finds many an honest, thrifty and 
industrious laborer in the poorhouse and the potter's field is 
saturated with proletarian flesh and blood. ■ - , •; 

Self-help is a beautiful principle for the strong, but a cruel 
mockery when preached by the strong exploiter to his victim. 
The average wage worker is not able to earn enough in his 
best years and in so-called good times to provide for many 
rainy days in the summer of his life and for the winter of life, 
his age of physical decline. The industrial proletariat in its 
present unorganized condition is not able to take care of its 



147 

own invalids. The few unsuccessful attempts on the part of 
mutual aid and sick benefit laborers 3 asociations to cope with 
the problem prove our contention. Indeed, as long as the 
economic condition of the individual members of such organi- 
zations is insecure 1 — there can he no talk about the security 
of the institution itself. 

Who shall then take the burden of providing for the in- 
valids of the industrial army of the proletariat? Society at 
large represented by the state in general, and the capitalist 
class in particular. The wage worker gives to society at large 
and the capitalist in particular his best powers, he wastes 
the strength of his muscles and the energy of his nerves in his 
endeavor to create the commodities necessary for the life and 
happiness of all members of society. But when the strength 
of his muscles is becoming exhausted, when the energy 
of his nervous system is over-strained in the service of society 
he is turned into an object of frigid and bitter charity. How 
different is the fate of a private of the industrial army trained 
in the peaceful and useful arts of creating things necessary 
for life and its enjoyment, from that of a soldier trained in 
the craft of wholesale murder and destruction called war. 
The Cain of militarism is the beloved son of our Christian 
civilization, while the Abel of peaceful and useful arts is 
treated as a slave. 

The usual objection raised by the Philistines of our time 
against any measure tending to the protection of the proleta- 
riat is his (the Philistines) aversion to paternalism and his 
fear of the ghost of state Socialism. Curiously enough the 
Philistine has no objection against paternalism and state So- 
cialism, when legislation in favor of the ruling classes is the 
object of discussion. The Philistine does not see either pater- 
nalism or state Socialism in the protection by the state of such 
lusty infants of industry as the giant steel trust or sugar-trust 
babies or poverty-stricken railroad corporations. 

The Socialists of America, the champions of the pro- 
letariat, must demand justice for the invalids of the prole- 
tariat. They must demand that the state should include in its 
functions, the creation of institutions, providing for the sick 
and invalids of the laboring class, just as it provides for its 
soldiers. In all European countries, including even little 
Eoumania and the colossus of Eussia, there is a system of leg- 
islation creating protection for the victims of accidents during 



148 

work, to the sick laborers and to invalids of labor. Germany, 
owing to the influence of the strong Social Democratic party, 
has gone farther in that direction than any other country and 
provided an insurance for laborers even in case of protracted 
inability to work in consequence of an accident or sickness. It 
is impossible to present here an approximate idea of the mag- 
nitude of the work done in Europe in that direction within 
the limits of one article. It will suffice to present here brief 
statistical data concerning Germany. In 1893 there were 
legalized 21,226 benefit institutions with 7,106,804 insured; 
2,794,027 persons benefited during 46,199,436 days of sick- 
ness. The expenditure amounted to 126,018,810 marks, while 
the total income reached 83,811,959 marks. In 1894 there 
were 18,060,000 persons insured against accidents; 266,400 
accidents were adjusted. The old age pension benefited in 
1894 11,510,000; insured, 295,200. The forty institutions 
had an income of 109,580,000 marks, an expenditure of 25,- 
560,000 marks. Their capital amounted to 329,500,000 
marks. The sum furnished to- it by the state amounted to 
13,920,000 marks. Each member of the sick benefit associa- 
tions is entitled in Germany to free medical attendance and 
medicine and likewise to spectacles, crutches and similar 
things in case of need. Beginning with the third day a sick 
benefit is paid out at the rate of one-half of the wages received 
by the patient. A death benefit amounting to a sum equal to 
twenty times the wages earned by the deceased is provided in 
compulsory associations. Accident insurance is provided for 
every insured person, irrespective of consideration as to the 
party to be blamed for the accident. This provision elimi- 
nates costly and protracted litigation. The authority, Mau- 
rice Black, points out in his book, Les Assurances ouvrieres 
en Allemagne, Paris, 1894, that the field of charity contracts 
with the extension of labor insurance and old age pensions. 



1 19 



XXXIII. BUILDING OF THE CO-OPERATIVE COM- 
MONWEALTH. 

Evolution consists mainly in progressive organization and 
co-ordination of forces. The degree of complexity of an or- 
ganism is an indication of its place on the evolutionary ladder. 
The more complex the higher it stands. Organization and 
co-ordination are the most economic modes of utilizing 
natural forces. Indeed the higher a plant or animal is from 
the evolutionary point of view, the more minute and thorough 
is the division of labor among its various organs, the greater 
their mutual interdependence, the more specialized their 
functions. 

This is equally true in respect to the organization called hu- 
man society. The more advanced a social organization is the 
more minute and thorough must be the division of labor amon^ 
its members, the more specialized their functions. A striking 
illustration of the fact is furnished by the industrial system 
of production of modern society, as compared with that of pri- 
mitive societies of savages or semi-barbarians. The advan- 
tages of co-ordination of the results of division of labor and 
its specialization for any kind of social activity are obvious. 
The armies of all civilized nations are managed strictly in 
accordance with that method. But even in the field of mind 
activity, as, for instance, in natural sciences, division of labor 
or specialization goes hand in hand with co-ordination or 
generalization. A Charles Darwin presupposes a host of well- 
trained specialists diligently pursuing minute investigations 
observations and experiments in their particular field of 
knowledge. The origin of castes, classes and other social sub- 
divisions is traceable to the ever-increasing division and spe- 
cialization of social labor from time immemorial to our day. 

On these facts of social evolution Socialist thinkers build 
their system of society. Socialism represents a conscious en- 
deavor so to organize and co-ordinate the forces inherent in 
society as to attain the highest possible physical and spiritual 
welfare of the greatest possible number of its members. So- 
cialists are conscious evolutionists. Lester Ward says: "So- 
ciety, which is the highest product of evolution, naturally de- 
pends upon mind, which is the highest property of matter." 
The same authority defines the aim of dynamic sociology 



150 

as "the organization of happiness," and claims that: "The 
dynamic department of psychology becomes also that of so- 
ciology the moment we rise from the individual to society." 
Human mind must modify and direct the evolutionary powers 
of society in order to "organize happiness." 

Socialist writers devote a great deal of their attention to 
purely economic problems. There are, however quite a few 
fields of social activity not elucidated sufficiently from the So- 
cialistic point of view,. One of these is the general technical 
understructure of Socialism and the administration of public 
affairs in particular. In European countries the administra- 
tive functions rest on the broad shoulders of a special class— 
the bureaucracy. In the United States we have for that pur- 
pose a host of public officials. The European bureaucracy is 
(with the exception of Russia) competent, but meddlesome. 
The officialdom of the United States is notorious for its incom- 
petence and corruption, due to the debasing system of rota- 
tion of office, founded on the principle "to the victor belongs 
the spoils." The so-called civil service reform has only recent- 
ly been introduced in a half-hearted, fragmentary and crude 
manner. Indeed, the two old parties exist only for all there 
is in politics — i. e., for the spoils, and it would be rather too 
sanguine to expect from them the introduction of an honest 
and able measure doing away with the political spoils, the 
very sub-stratum on which they live. 

The fundamental principle of civil service reform — that 
the public is entitled to the best services of the best men in 
the community — is, however, sound and entirely in accord 
with Socialistic ideas about the administration of all public 
affairs by specialists, educated and trained for that purpose 
in special schools. The state maintains special schools for the 
purpose of providing the army and navy with competent 
officers. Why should not the state do the same for the civil 
department of administration? Society is certainly more 
benefited by the peaceful civic activity of its administration 
than by the development of the destructive arts of war. It 
is true that as long as the capitalistic state of society exists 
the Socialistic ideal of administration of public affairs by 
specialists cannot be realized in all its perfection and purity. 
In the first instance, the capitalistic state will only occasional- 
ly attract to public service some of the best members of society. 
The danger of an hereditary cast of officials fostered bv the 



151 

state can be entirely eliminated only in a perfect Social De- 
mocracy. Besides this, only a perfect Social Democracy will 
present a real equality of opportunities to all its citizens to 
choose and prepare themselves for any kind of social activity. 
These and similar considerations, however, ought not to deter 
Socialists from the support of the 1 civil service reform, even 
in its present mutilated and embryonic shape, on account of its 
principle. 

Advanced Socialist thinkers do not expect any sudden 
transformation of the present capitalistic state of 
society into a co-operative commonwealth by the 
means of a popular revolt or in consequence of a 
general economic collapse. They do not unduly 
idealize the proletariat as a creative social factor ready to 
perform miracles of constructive work when given a fair 
chance after a violent social upheaval. History does not war- 
rant such an idealization. History does not support the faith 
of the Socialists of the old school that capitalism is bound 
to work out, mechanically, so to speak, its own destruction and 
then be replaced automatically by Socialism, even in case no 
conscientious and conscious endeavor to work in that direction 
exists on the part of the members of society. History abounds 
rather in examples of civilization of thousands of years' stand- 
ing that crumbled like dust and were replaced by barbarism 
under the stress of social-economic incongruities. Socialism 
may save our modern civilization from such a fate if con- 
sciously innoculated and diligently reared in the midst of 
the Capitalistic society, but not otherwise. The transforma- 
tion of the capitalistic state into a Socialistic one can be 
brought about more or less gradually. Socialism must grow, 
so to speak, into our present society and permeate its entire 
system until it absorbs and transforms it into the new order. 

Such a conception of the process of the socialization of so- 
ciety does not leave any space, either to optimistic fatalism, or, 
to use a Utopian phrase — revolutionism, but is conducive to 
untiring immediate work for a gradual realization of the So- 
cialistic ideal. Neither complacent dreams about the future 
millennium, nor empty phraseology or revolutionary cant can 
be of any avail to the advanced Socialist conscious of the mag- 
nitude and scope of the task before him and of the grave re- 
sponsibilities connected with it. We have to start the realiza- 
tion of our ideals, as far as our powers reach, in our own time 



152 

in our present social environment. If we do not succeed in ac- 
complishing much, we will at least lay the foundation on 
which future generations will build the magnificent structure 
of Socialistic society. 

Fanatics and revolutionary phrase-mongers may look idly 
on our endeavor and soothe their ill-humor by sneering at us 
as "reformers" engaged in patch-work. They may brag about 
their uncompromising attitude toward the present society. 
Our work and the results of our work will be our vindication. 



1 i I 



XXXIV. INTELLECTUAL PROLETARIAT. 

Can there be a more pathetic sight than thai of 8 sick infant 
in its utter helplessness and abandon? It tVHs acutely the 
intense pain without having the slighest idea about its origin, 

causes and nature, without being able to relieve the nervous 
strain by articulated, intelligent speech. The task of physi- 
cians treating infants is therefore of a higher order and their 
responsibilities of a graver nature than those of a general 
practitioner. An infant's physician must diagnose the sick- 
ness on the foundation of his own observation and studies 
and adopt a method of treatment according to his own con- 
clusions. * 

The broad masses of the people may be aptly compared 
with an overgrown infant. Indeed, the masses are conscious 
of the social-economic diseases of the time as far as they feel 
their painful results. This consciousness is, however, of a 
rather vague character and does not extend to an intelligent 
conception of the origin, causes and nature of the diseases 
and the ways and means of their elimination. At times when 
the social-economic diseases of an epoch reach their climax 
and the pain inflicted by them appears insufferable, the infant- 
people loses its angelic patience. The long suppressed forces 
of resistance to social w T rong find their vent in a purely ele- 
mentary stroke at some object that happens to concentrate 
on itself the hatred of the masses. This object may be a Bas- 
tile or a king's head. Once, however, the fury of the people's 
wrath has spent itself the masses of the people relapse into 
the customary spiritual apathy and mental lethargy. The 
powers for evil once more reign supreme. 

Fortunately there is a class of people in all the civilized 
countries of the world that are able and willing to cope with 
the difficult task and grave responsibilities of physicians of 
social-economic diseases of their time. This class is called 
the class of intellectuals. The intellectuals impart rational 
consciousness to the blind social forces and try to direct them 
in certain channels of usefulness. The intellectuals represent 
the brain and heart of the people, the reason and conscience 
of their generation, the mind of their country. The intel- 
lectuals incorporate and preserve in their sanctuary the nob- 
lest ideals and highest aspirations of the human race. In the 



154 

days gone by the intellectuals rarely belonged themselves to 
the broad masses of the people, to the oppressed and disin- 
herited lower classes. If they identified themselves with the 
interest of the popular masses it was done by them out of con- 
siderations of a higher order than mere sordid selfishness. 
It was the deep consciousness of the highest interests of the 
race as a unit. 

What is likely to be the part enacted by the intellectuals 
in the modern social-economic struggle of the proletariat 
against the encroachments of the exploiting upper classes? 
is the question that must interest every thoughtful student 
of our times. Whatever our answer mav be, there is no doubt 
that the intellectuals of the modern ages have a 
stronger motive to work in the interest of the pro- 
letariat than the intellectuals of preceding historical 
epochs. The Socialists of the old school may still 
insist on overalls and tin pails as necessary insignia of a true 
proletarian. Some middle class optimists may still fondly 
cling to the legend about the self-made man. These narrow 
ideas and antiquated notions of people, that neither forget 
nor learn anything, are doomed to disappear under the pres- 
sure of events. The mills of the tin gods of capitalism grind 
a great deal faster and finer than the old-fashioned mills of 
the ancient dieties of Olympus used to do. The intellectual 
worker is turned into an insignificant appendix of the soul- 
less giant corporations of manufacture, trade and commerce, 
just as fast and thorough as the ordinary unsophisticated 
proletarian is transformed into an appendix of the dead tool of 
production, the machine. 

The same social-economic conditions that created the in- 
dustrial wage-slave system gave birth to the intellectual pro- 
letariat. That the last must feel more in touch with the 
modern proletariat class as a whole, that it must be endowed 
with a deeper sympathy with the suffering of the masses, that 
it must fight with greater ardour for the cause of the eman- 
cipation of labor from capital than was the case with the in- 
tellectuals of other historical epochs appears obvious. In- 
deed the intellectual of other times was at best a benevolent, 
stranger to the people, while the intellectual modern prole- 
tarian is one of the people himself and cannot help suffering 
and feeling with the people. The advantages to be derived 



156 

from such an intimate relation between the proletariat and 
the class of brain workers arc hound to prove themselves iii 
the near future. Capitalism is itself cementing the union be- 
tween the different wings of the proletariat class. The clerk, 

the teacher, the physician, the engineer, the chemist, the law- 
yer and other professional men feel more and more the grow- 
ing economic insecurity of their occupations, due to the 
economic insecurity of the actual producer, the industrial 
laborer and the farmer. There seems to he an overproduction 
or underconsumption of professional men in the same meas- 
ure as there is an excess of supply of lahor of all kind. The 
reserve army of proletarians includes professors, teachers, phy- 
sicians, chemists and other meinhers of the liheral professions. 
Our present society teems with people ahle and anxious to he 
useful to society, hut finding no employment, while there exists 
a great need everywhere of men anxious and capable of work- 
ing. The anarchy of our social-economic system is the cause of 
this, as of many other incongruities and absurdities that can- 
not fail to engage the attention of our intellectual proletariat 
and impart a powerful impetus to critical thought and 
prompt action. Indeed the press, the pulpit, the representa- 
tives of science are diligently discussing the most striking 
phenomena of our social-economic system, such as the trusts, 
disturbances of the lahor market, board of trade manipula- 
tions, in a spirit of frank desire to arrive at the truth, that 
is very encouraging to the advocates of conscious social evo- 
lution. The social-economic diseases of our time approach 
their climax, the afflictions of the broad masses of the people 
are becoming insufferable and the intellectuals are preparing 
themselves to perform their historical mission as leaders in the 
righteous struggle for justice and right in human inter-rela- 
tions. 



156 



XXXV. OX THE EVE OF THE TWENTIETH CEN- 
TURY. 

A VISION. 

Sub Specie Aeternitatis. 

I dreamed I was once more in exile in the Arctic region 
watching the dark blue starry skies at night, I saw nearly 
in the center of the northern part of the horizon a deep dark 
segment, so dark and menacing that feeling of awe and ter- 
ror crept unawares over me. Strangely enough, the segment, 
glaring like a bottomless abyss under the feet of a daring 
mountain climber and ready to swallow him at any moment, 
not only did not repel me, but rather attracted all my atten- 
tion with an unexplainable fascination. Gray clouds of in- 
distinct, perpetually changing shape and outlines were slowly 
creeping forward and backward over the black abyss like 
shadows of dethroned ancient deities. At times the shadow 
broadened, glimmered with phosphorescent flames, covering, 
like a huge fantastic curtain, a considerable part of the hori- 
zon and then vanished at once, leaving behind the same dense 
Egyptian darkness. The gigantic shadow then reappeared, 
took more distinct shape and outlines, more intense colors; 
green, blue, red — all the shades and hues of the rainbow in 
the most unexpected,^ but always harmonious combinations. 

It was a chaotic vision, a series of perpetually changing 
magnificent pictures. At times a part, at times the whole 
horizon, at times the starry heavens and the snowbound sea, 
and even the intensely cold atmosphere appeared in flames, as 
if all the volcanoes of the globe were thrown into a state of 
the most violent eruption. The waves of the ocean of colored 
flames seemed to menace everything and everybody .on earth. 
And not a sound, even the faintest, could be heard. I looked 
and waited and wondered. A crushing feeling of my human 
nothingness overwhelmed me. I felt like shutting my eyes, 
dazzled and tired out by the vision, when suddenly a divine 
being approached before me, as if borne by the waves of the 
irresistible flood of flaming air. It would be futile and sacre- 
ligious at the same time, on my part to attempt to describe 
the heavenly apparition — so celestially beautiful and radi- 
ant and yet so humanly plain and simple. I felt more happy, 



157 

calm and hopeful than ever in my life before or since So 
much goodness, so much Bweetness and sublime simplicity 
radiated from the childlike, womanly countenance of the god- 
dess, thai I fell at thai moment with all the fibres of my body, 
with all the powers of my soul, thai I was in the presence of 
a divine being, and all the dross of everyday drudgery, cares, 
fears ami anxiety, melted away, leaving behind the pure gold 
of an exalted human existence. 

The £f>d<li>ss touched me with the flaming torch carried in 
her left hand. She spoke, and her voice sounded like the mur- 
mur of flowers caressed by the spring zephyr: "Follow me" 
she said. "I am the future of the human race. 

T had no will hut hers, and obeyed silently and joyfully, 
like a child, the command of a well-beloved mother. The 
earth at once lost the power of attraction for my body and 
sou! ; and I felt lifted to heights unspeakahle. I lost all idea 
about space and time. 

Born, wither and how long, I know not, we came to a pri- 
son, located in the very midst of a primeval forest of Siberia. 
A prematurely aged man with remarkably noble and intel- 
ligent features whose hands and feet were chained to the 
slimy wall slept on a wooden bench swarming with the most 
abominable vermin. Fearful phantasma seemed to disturb 
the prisoner's rest. The goddess touched him with her torch 
The prisoner did not rise, but a happy smile for a moment 
rejuvenated the careworn face of the martyr. 

"It is new year, the first of a new century. You know me. 
I am come to console you/' said the goddess. 

'To console me?" bitterly retorted the unfortunate in a 
faint, broken voice, once so musical and magnetic. "Do not 
trouble yourself about me! You had no more devoted ser- 
vants than I. I sacrificed my lifehood to the cause of hu- 
manity, and here I am, a slave of slaves, a broken vessel ! Go 
to the mighty of the earth, to the kings, emperors and czars!" 
He then turned away hiy face to the slimy wall inconsolable 
in his great affliction. 

An indescribable sadness over-shadowed the divine features 
of the goddess and we departed. Again we floated silently 
through the space till we stopped before a small frame build- 
ing and entered a room filled with books, manuscripts, maps 
and philosophical instruments. A venerable sage was dream- 



158 

ing in his oldfashioned chair. The goddess touched him with 
her torch and repeated her greeting. 

"A new century, indeed ! What a mighty consolation !" 
answered the sage sarcastically. "My whole life has been 
spent in the search of truth. I opened new vistas of thought, 
made many discoveries and inventions ? What of it ? Did all 
this improve the conditions, lighten the burden of the poor, 
the downtrodden, the disinherited part of the human race? 
Go to the priests, to the successful captains of industry, to the 
professional politicians.^ Again sadness darkened the face 
of the goddess and we departed. We then entered the splen- 
did palace of a mighty ruler — the Czar of Eussia. Sur- 
rounded by almost inhuman luxury and treated like a demi- 
god^ he dreamed on his gorgeous throne. The deity did not 
touch him with her torch, and he took no heed of us. His wife 
and child came in and congratulated him on the advent of the 
new year, a new century. The ruler of hundreds of millions 
of subjects did not seem to be happy and contented. "I wish 
I could be a poor peasant/' said he to his wife. The bur- 
den of my crown is too heavy for my head. I am the least free 
of all my subjects, and my rule is, after all, only nominal. 
I do not and cannot know and ascertain the real needs of my 
people, and even if I would and could I should be powerless to 
accomplish any real good. I am the servant of my advisors 
and cannot make one step independently. I am surrounded 
by people I cannot trust and must be ready any moment to 
meet a violent death. The future does not belong to us so 
called mighty rulers. Our days have passed. for the hum- 
ble lot of the poorest of my subjects !" 

Not less surprising was our experience in the palace of one 
of the richest men on earth. "Do not congratulate me with 
new years and centuries/' said he to his intimate friends. 
"The future does not belong to us, financial kings. Our days 
are passing never to return again. And I really am not quite 
certain if there is any cause to lament it. Frankly speaking, 
my life was a failure as far as real human happiness is con- 
cerned. I exhausted all my energies in amassing fabulous 
wealth. At first I enjoyed success, but soon got used to it 
and looked upon it as a matter of course. I had no time to 
enjoy life in my young years and lost the capacity for enjoy- 
ment in my declining age. My friends are few, while my ene- 
mies' name is legion; and my conscience bothers me some- 



I5fl 

times more than I care to confess. I did, alas! many a thing 
in niv career 1 would give my life now to be undone. 01 for 
the humble lot of one of the humblest of my employee I My 

wealth becomes more and more burdensome to me, it crushes 

me with every hour." 

We next visited the pope of Home. He at once recognized 
the goddess, but did not seem to be especially edified by her ar- 
rival. "I do not see any reason to rejoice in the advent of the 
new century. As a representative of one of the strongest dog- 
matic religions I have to confess, that our days have passed 
and the future does not belong to us churchmen. The old 
dogmatic creeds are decaying fast. And what replaces them?" 

Again, we soared through space till we stopped in the midst 
of one of the largest cities of the United States. A mighty 
throng of listeners was gathered around a speaker. He was 
a young carpenter, unusually handsome, and his striking ap- 
pearance was enhanced by a half mystical, but wholly self- 
reliant radiance of mien, showing a firm faith and deep ab- 
sorption in his theme. His voice was remarkably clear, 
strong and winning. The audience w r as spell-bound and 
thoroughly in touch with the magnetic personality of the 
speaker. He spoke with unsurpassed eloquence about the pros- 
pects of the new century and compared it with the passed. 
The nineteenth century was the epoch of unchecked individ- 
ualism, selfishness and pessimism, of purely negative 
ideas, of destruction of old institutions without build- 
ing new ones to replace them, of religious hypocrisy and gen- 
eral moral cowardice. The speaker hailed in glowing words 
the twentieth century as the dawn of a new era of race con- 
sciousness instead of class- consciousness and individualism, 
altruism instead of selfishness and optimism instead of pes- 
simism. Positive ideas as a basis for the entire reconstruction 
of anachronistic social institutions, ideals of true human 
brotherhood and perfect solidarity of interests will replace the 
old fetishes of so-called sovereign personality. There was no 
trace of declamation or mannerism to be noted in the speaker. 
He appealed not only to the reason, but to the innermost 
hearts of his listeners, to the holy of holies of the human soul. 
And there was not one man or woman so hardened and soiled 
by the meanness of life who were not touched and ennobled for 
the time being. The divine spark feebly glowing under the 
heaps of moral, or rather immoral, rubbish even in the most 



P Ott 14 1901 



SEP 30 1901 

160 

depraved human being was blown into flames and the enthus- 
iasm of the audience was great. Indeed, before their spiritual 
eyes were enrolled vistas of thought and sentiments, of the ex- 
istence of which they never dreamed, motives of action were 
pointed out, about which they never before had heard. But, 
above all, they were made to feel for the first time in their bar- 
ren lives the deep sacredness, the high dignity and the true 
significance of human relations. He preached the gospel of 
humanity turned divine, of humanity identified with divinity, 
of the total renunciation of the personality in the interests 
of the race — this sublime unity with a past, full of mysterious 
charm and a future too glorious to be imagined by us. The 
longer he spoke the higher ran the enthusiasm of his en- 
chanted listeners, the more their numbers grew. Every word 
of the new prophet of Eaceism was wired by special reporters 
to all the nooks and corners of the globe and aroused every- 
where the same enthusiasm, kindled the same religious ardor, 
implanted the same ideals and aspirations. For the first time 
in the history of the world all humanity was united in one all- 
absorbing thought — its perfect solidarity as a race. 

Again w T e soared through space till we arrived at Paris to 
the worlds congress of nations assembled with the purpose to 
inaugurate eternal peace on earth and good will to men, to de- 
vise new social and economic institutions on the basis of reason 
and equity, to do away forever with exploitation of men by 
men, of one class by another in any shape or manner, to in- 
augurate real economic freedom and social equality, to pro- 
claim the religion of divine humanity. The world's history 
never witnessed deliberations so profound in their nature, so 
broad in their scope, so deep in their significance. So en- 
thused was I by the sight of the world's congress of nations, 
that I ventured to say a few words myself, but at that moment 
I awoke and the vision vanished. 

The sun was still under the horizon, but its light messen- 
gers, the rosv Aurora, spread like a heap of sheaves upward 
into the deep azure of the starry sky. The East glowed in a 
sea of molten gold, silver and rubies. The upper rim of the 
sun appeared over the horizon, blending the joyous specta- 
tors with its fiery light and inaugurating the glorious dawn 
of the twentieth century, the century of Socialism. 



Price, 25 Cents. 



THE PASSING OF 
CAPITALISM 



BY 



iSADOR LADOFR 



DEBS PUBLISHING COMPANY, 
TERRE HAUTE. IND. 



October, 1901. PROGRESSIVE THOUGHT. No 17. 

Published Quarterly. 50 cents a Year 



Entered at the Postoffice at Terre Haute, End., as second-cla6s matter. 



V* 



v orC - 
BINDERY 

1903 



